Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama is smarter than I am (697 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  BTW, exactly what did killing Bin Laden (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, run around

    accomplish other than a fulfillment of revenge and a bunch of Brownie points.

    The old geezer was completely out of the loop, forced to watch reruns on TV while getting only occasional communiques from outside.

    The old al Qaeda in the AfPak region has splinted and morphed and has now metastasized over the entire MENA region.

      •  The stories initially floated that bin Laden (5+ / 0-)

        had a weapon in his room and that he used one of his wives as a human shield were shown to be bogus not long after the raid. All of our guys made it out of Pakistan unharmed. There's no credible reason to believe at this point that bin Laden could not have been captured and returned to the States for trial and, upon conviction, life long imprisonment.

        Demonstrating to the world that the system of accountability we used to embrace was superior to all others would have been real justice on a host of fronts.

        Instead, the world was witness to our assassination of an unarmed, demented foe, a body dumped at sea, and the spectacle of revelers in Times Square chanting, "USA! USA! We're Number One!"

        This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

        by WisePiper on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:17:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You'll have to take that conversation up with the (18+ / 0-)

          guy that put a bullet in him. For whatever reason, he felt he needed to do it.

          I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

          by second gen on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:20:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You tell the guy who shot him that he was (34+ / 0-)

          a coward, then. Or on an assassination mission.

          I long to hear your brilliant knowledge of military law compared to the poor dimwitted SEAL who was only following Obama's orders, which were doubtless pure evil.

          Occam's razor suggests that the SEAL thought Osama was armed or capable of arming himself. Because no one has yet found a witness who testifies that those men were ordered to take no prisoners.

          I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

          by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:51:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  These are the fucking facts: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snoopydawg, Johnny Q, ovals49

            According to Jay Carney's admission after the initial stories began to fall apart, bin Laden was NOT armed. One of the women in that room (not armed) rushed toward the Seal Team and was (justifiably, in my view) shot in the leg. The fire fight prior to the Seal Team's entry into bin Laden's room had been raging for at least half a minute, giving bin Laden plenty of time to arm himself if he had access to a weapon there. He was wearing no coat or jacket under which he might have been concealing one. Again, with a hell of a lot at stake, Carney was forced to concede bin Laden was not armed.

            Occam's razor suggests (nay, SCREAMS) if the orders were to try to take bin Laden alive, no Seal Team individual would have dared to put a bullet in his brain when he was clearly unarmed.

            Now, you can argue that putting bin Laden down on the spot like a rabid dog was justifiable as a suitable revenge (though that would be morally repugnant), but you can NOT, given the White House admissions, argue in good faith that the assassination order did not come from the President.

            This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

            by WisePiper on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:36:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That would make it an assassination (9+ / 0-)

              which everyone involved denies.

              Perhaps your version of the facts leaves something out.

              Such as the weapons in the room. Did you forget those?

              Are you seriously telling me that Osama bin Laden should have been treated as though he were not dangerous?

              Perhaps Obama's orders were to take him alive if possible. Which would account for everything, wouldn't it? As for 30 seconds of combat - if you start with bin Laden asleep, then he peers out of the room to see what's happening, it is not at all clear that he would have armed himself first. Contrary to TV shows, rifles aren't that loud.

              I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

              by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:45:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, well, golly gee, everyone DENIES it. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dfarrah, snoopydawg, Johnny Q, ovals49

                I guess that settles it.

                And the President denies that innocent collateral civilians are killed at a greater rate than terrorists in drone attacks.

                And the President denies Bradley Manning's treatment for nine months violated the Geneva Conventions.

                And the President denies the NSA is engaged in domestic spying.

                And the President denies that national security whistle blowers will be persecuted, if only they pursue their grievances through channels.

                And the President denies that he and Bauccus and Lieberman intentionally tanked the public option.

                And, wait for it, Jamie Dimon is just a savvy businessman!

                You know what? President Obama squandered whatever credibility he may have once possessed years ago.

                At this point, if the President asserts it's raining, those of us who haven't been sleep walking these past five years stick our hands out the window to check. He brought this on himself.

                This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

                by WisePiper on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:29:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What about your claim that here were no (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  edwardssl, Gurnt

                  weapons in the room?

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:12:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, according to the Wikipedia article (0+ / 0-)

                    linked by blue aardvark, there were two rifles found on a shelf in the room after the seals started photographing bin Laden's body. This contradicts my recollection of the findings.

                    However, if this article is to be considered authoritative, note also that it also says that, as the seals were advancing up the stairs, bin Laden peaked over the third floor ledge and a seal shot him in the head. After they entered the room, with bin Laden lying on the floor with a gruesome, obvious head wound (and we've all seen those pictures) another seal shot him twice in the chest.

                    Kind of puts the lie to the oft repeated claim on this site that the President instructed that bin Laden be taken alive if possible. Unless blue aardvark wants to now claim the seals went rogue and willfully ignored the President's order.

                    This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

                    by WisePiper on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:41:32 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you. I appreciate your candor. (0+ / 0-)

                      That said, I don't think that the entry definitively supports your interpretation.

                      According to the entry, the events unfolded in"pitch black" conditions. While the SEAL team was reportedly equipped with night vision goggles, the particular technology isn't specified, so it isn't possible to determine just what degree of visibility they were operating in. Having been fired upon, they were shooting at anything they perceived to be a threat. It's not clear from the entry that they knew that it was Bin Laden "peeking" at them from the third floor when they fired on him.

                      As you point out, head wounds are messy and quite often fatal. I imagine there was a great deal of blood which might have obscured Bin Laden's features. So it isn't apparent that Bin Laden was still alive when he received the last two shots or if the shooters knew who he was even then.

                      All that aside, I'm not certain why you think the Administration would need to dissemble on this point. Do you really think that they would pay any significant political price if they said that they hadn't tried to take him alive?

                      More to the point, the "alive if possible, dead if necessary" order is pretty much pro forma. The chances of the targeted individual coming through an operation like this in one piece are negligible to begin with and ultimately, what's "possible" is left to the discretion of the forces on the ground.

                      This isn't to say you're wrong, you could be right but it's no slam dunk.

                           

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:12:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  It doesn't even matter. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                merrywidow, jncca

                Bin Laden was the head of al-Qaeda, an enemy of the United States as declared in the AUMF.  In war, you may shoot your enemies without giving them a chance to surrender, but if they surrender, you have to take them prisoner.

                If he was shot on sight, that would be OK under the laws of war unless he was unequivocally giving himself up.

                Frankly I didn't even want a trial.  That would have just been another political shitshow magnitudes greater than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  He's better off with the fishes, a well-deserved fate.

                •  Thank you for your honest response. (0+ / 0-)

                  You clearly don't care that the proposition that the President wanted bin Laden captured alive if possible was absolute bullshit. You just wanted the fucker dead, without the political inconvenience of a trial. Score one for the lizard brain.

                  This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

                  by WisePiper on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:44:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Whose lizard brain? (0+ / 0-)

                    PBO? Commenters who disagree with you? Me?

                    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

                    by voicemail on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:14:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It wasn't necessary that bin Laden be tried. (0+ / 0-)

                    He could have been killed on sight as the head of al-Qaeda unless he unequivocally surrendered.

                    While I'm sympathetic to the idea of trying everyone we can, we unfortunately live in the real world where Republicans would demand all kinds of outrageous things in order to bring bin Laden to justice, and fearmonger the living hell out of it, just like they did with KSM and transfer of Guantanamo prisoners, except orders of magnitude worse.

                    I mean, yeah, we took the easy way out, and I'm fine with that.  Well-deserved.

      •  Justice? Bin Laden didn't even engineer 9/11. (2+ / 3-)

        How about justice for the 100's of thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis that had to pay the ultimate price of their lives because of America's revenge attacks for 9/11?

        State sanctioned homicide is not justice. It is nothing more than pure revenge. Hopefully the US will join the majority in the community of nations that have outlawed killing for revenge.

        •  Then what, pray tell, (11+ / 0-)

          was Al Quaeda's justification for the slaughter they undertook on 9/11?  Not the reason given, but the justification.  Are they to be forgiven because we Americans are just mean people?  Did we derserve what happened to us?

          I EAGERLY await your answer...

          •  Justification for the slaughter (0+ / 0-)

            On 9/11?  
            How about our decades of foreign policy?  
            Coups, installing brutal dictators that torture their people.
            Invading and murdering millions of innocent people.
            You make it sound like the US is guilt free of wrong doing.
            I disagree Obama is that smart.
            From FISA, his cabinet picks, PO, mandate, droning over 8 countries.
            But the biggest disappointents are letting war criminals off.
            Prosecuting whistleblowers.
            Opening up more areas for drilling.
            BP.
            Letting the bank criminals off.
            And not doing anything while millions lose their houses, jobs, healthcare.
            The NDA, NDAA and the biggest betrayal, the TPP.
            You do know what the TPP is going to do to this country and the economy.
            And Congress doesn't even get to vote on it.
            It isn't like it is their job to ok trade agreements.
            Oh wait.

            Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

            by snoopydawg on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:44:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'll give you the motives which are very easy to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q

            locate if you wished to take the trouble. Keep in mind the targets selected - the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The fact they did not strike the Statue of Liberty tells me that Bush's "They hate us for our freedoms" was completely off the mark.

            First we need to clarify what we are talking about.

            motive: something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act
            justification: to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done
                 archaic : to administer justice to

            Now on to wiki:

            Motives for the September 11 attacks

            Motives for the attacks were stated before and after the attacks in several sources, Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a fatwā signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by investigators as evidence of his motivation.[2] In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] U.S. support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]
            ...
            Sources

            Before the attacks, Al-Qaeda issued proclamations that provide insight into the motivations for the attacks: one was the fatwā of August 1996,[3] and a second was a shorter fatwa in February 1998.[4] Both documents appeared initially in the Arabic-language London newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Three years before the September 11 attacks, Al-Qaeda released a Fatwa, stating "We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."[4] The Fatwa also complains against the presence of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel.[3][4] After the attacks, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have published dozens of video tapes and audio tapes, many describing the motivations for the attacks. Two particularly important publications were bin Laden's 2002 "Letter to America",[10] and a 2004 video tape by bin Laden.[11] In addition to direct pronouncements by bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, numerous political analysts have postulated motivations for the attacks.
            ...

            I EAGERLY await your answer...
            I eagerly await your response.
            •  To repeat: (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't ask for their motives or reasons, those you have described.  I asked for justification, as in, well, they had every right to do what they did, and we deserved it.  That sort of justification, which no one will EVER convince me of.  

              •  I just gave you Al Qaeda's 'justification' for the (0+ / 0-)

                attacks. Different nations have different 'laws'.

                Do you know what a "fatwa" is? (These are not my laws nor do I subscribe to them in case you wish to attack me again.)

                Fatwa

                A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is the technical term for the legal judgment or learned interpretation that a qualified jurist or mufti can give on issues pertaining to the Islamic law.
                ...
                An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as sharia law is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.

                I asked for justification, as in, well, they had every right to do what they did, and we deserved it.
                That's a moral judgment that should be applied universally, not just when WE are attacked. Did the ordinary Afghan or Iraqi citizen deserve the punishment the US government meted out to them? In Afghanistan it was punishing the people for the sins of their leaders (as well as for other geopolitical reasons). In Iraq the punishment of death to many, many thousands was based on manipulated data and outright lies.
                •  Two wrongs don't make a right. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Claudius Bombarnac

                  We have certainly done some very bad things to some very innocent people over the decades/centuries in the name of colonialism/spreading The Faith/civiling people/whatever.  and those people have risen up to smite us over the decades/centuries, putting blood on their own hands as well.

                  At some point it has to stop, but when your culture swears blood vengeance upon successive generations following the transgressor, or blames the "other" for everything that's wrong in your own society, then you lose moral authority.  And yes, we have done precisely that and regrettably continue to do so...

            •  In case you didn't read the 9/11 Commision Report (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q

              Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was identified as the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.

              The 9/11 Commission Report

              Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

              Executive Summary
              ...
              By late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Ladin and his advisers had agreed on an idea brought to them by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) called the "planes oper-ation." It would eventually culminate in the 9/ 11 attacks. Bin Ladin and his chief of operations, Mohammed Atef, occupied undisputed leadership positions atop al Qaeda. Within al Qaeda, they relied heavily on the ideas and enterprise of strong-willed field commanders, such as KSM, to carry out worldwide ter-rorist operations.
              ...

              •  For two thousand years the legal principle has (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Gurnt, Mets102

                been:

                Qui facit per alium, facit per se



                Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                by Wee Mama on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:30:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read my post. Where did I say he was innocent? (0+ / 0-)

                  The point I was trying to make is that killing someone for their crimes is no longer considered "justice" in many nations as well as states within the US. It rarely, if ever, has it's intended purpose in the prevention of future crimes (especially in the case of terrorists).

                  State sanctioned homicide is not justice. It is nothing more than pure revenge. Hopefully the US will join the majority in the community of nations that have outlawed killing for revenge.
                  The legal principle you quoted, if held uniformly, could get many American presidents prison sentences.
          •  According to the US government the planner (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q

            and mastermind of 9/11 was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

            'We left out nuclear targets, for now'

            The masterminds of Holy Tuesday - 11 September - frankly describe their lives as professional terrorists: 'It is what we do for a living'
            ...
            Indicted

            Khalid seemed content. Before the September 11 attacks few people, even intelligence agents, had heard of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. True, he had been indicted for his role in a 1995 Philippines-based plot to crash US airliners into the sea, but no one had ever questioned him for this - or for his alleged role in the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993.
            ...
            It was only after my 48-hour encounter with the masterminds of the "Holy Tuesday" operations in New York and Washington that the world, including the CIA and FBI, came to learn that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is al-Qaida's number three and that his importance to the group as a terrorist organiser in the field exceeds that of his boss, Bin Laden.
            ...

        •  HR'd for the CT LIE that bin Laden (5+ / 0-)

          was not involved in 9/11.  Reported to Admins.

          With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

          by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:03:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fine. I did not say Bin Laden was not involved. (0+ / 0-)

            I said he didn't "engineer" the attack which was one of the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report.

            You and several others are reading a whole lot into my statements which have no basis in reality.

            The other fact is that the killing of Bin Laden, however warranted, did not solve the problem of the terrorists. They have now metastasized from Afghanistan into the MENA region and the various affiliated groups are now many times larger than they were during Bin Laden's leadership.

            Bin Laden had been effectively neutered by American police action in the region for many years and was no longer capable of harming America in any pro-active manner. It was only a matter of time before he was found.

            One of the most important aims of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction by the government they are attacking. The US fell into that trap big time. Do I need to go into the Patriot Act and Homeland Security to prove my point?

            The American response to 9/11 was completely wrong and hundreds of thousands of innocent people where killed, maimed and displaced because of it. This is a widely held understanding by the entire world and by most Americans - or so I thought until seeing some of the responses here.

            You can report me all you want but if Admin does something then this is not a blog I wish to be involved in.

      •  My blind, HIV positive, bladder and (12+ / 0-)

        bowel damaged friend who is still getting pieces of the Nairobi Embassy removed from her body 15 years later was relieved he was gone.  Not vengeful, more glad to know a potent figure in that shadowy world was no longer around.  

        We forget the victims and the price they pay.

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:20:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, it sends one of those "messages" (24+ / 0-)

      that are so undervalued around here.

      This message being - You attack the US, you fucking die.

      That message goes to the next guy who gets ideas.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:15:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Optimally.... (16+ / 0-)

        ....bin Laden would have been arrested, tried, and sentenced to life imprisonment (I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances). But, politically, that would have been completely impossible, so Obama basically made the best choice.

      •  Along with 100's of thousands of innocents in (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead, chuckvw, Johnny Q, snoopydawg

        foreign countries.

        This message being - You attack the US, you fucking die.

        That message goes to the next guy who gets ideas.

        Most of the hardcore jihadis don't care if they die. In fact most welcome death in the service of killing Americans or damaging American interests. They become heroes and martyrs.

        How much damage has al Qaeda done to America compared to the damage the country did to itself and to its image in it's heavy handed response?

        Get used to the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Fusion Centers, militarized police and insidious NSA spying. It's here to stay.

        As Bush said "They hate us for our freedoms". Give the country another few years and "they" won't have any more reasons to hate America.

        •  How much of the damage done by al Qaeda (11+ / 0-)

          Was done by our political leadership in the decade after 9/11?

          Imagine a world where we didn't take our eyes off the goal in Afghanistan in order to go adventuring in Iraq for a decade...

          •  The Taliban would have offered up Bin Laden (6+ / 0-)

            for a price. They wanted more aid money and recognition as the legal state government of Afghanistan just as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE had done.

            The US said "Fuck you" and bombed. They wanted regime change so it wouldn't have mattered what the Taliban did. Now, over a decade later, with many American soldiers and uncounted Afghan dead, the doors have been opened for dialogue with the Taliban.

            The Taliban had little to do with 9/11 but they and thousands of innocents paid the price nonetheless.

            Before you go on about the women of Afghanistan read Malalai Joya's, A Woman Among Warlords. She does not have kind words for either Hillary or Obama or for how NATO has executed the war.

            •  Ah...a fortune teller in our midst. n/t (8+ / 0-)

              Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

              by jiffypop on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:31:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They know the future... (8+ / 0-)

                ...but here they are, posting on dailykos.

                While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:39:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The offer was made by Afghani gov't (4+ / 0-)

                after 9/11. But that wasn't what GWB wanted.

              •  Where were you in 2001 when Bush was preparing for (0+ / 0-)

                war? Pounding the war drums? Itching to go out and kick some ass for 9/11?

                Were you involved in any blogs or newsgroups discussing the pending war? Did you learn anything about the history and background of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region? Of the overt and covert connections with the CIA and ISI and the Saudis?

                Did you know there were plans to invade Afghanistan before 9/11?

                Afghanistan Land Mine

                by S. Frederick Starr,
                Washington Post, 19 December 2000

                Three little-noted recent measures on Afghanistan mark a fundamental shift in U.S. policy not only toward that impoverished land but toward all Central Asia and even the Middle East. Whether it succeeds or fails, the outgoing administration's latest gambit will damage basic U.S. interests.

                First, the United States has quietly begun to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out Osama bin Laden....

                Second, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth met recently with Russia's friends in the government of India to discuss what kind of government should replace the Taliban....

                Third, the United States is supporting a one-sided resolution in the United Nations that would strengthen sanctions against foreign military aid for the Taliban but take no action against its warlord opponents, who control a mere 3 to 5 percent of the country's territory.
                ...
                These shifts add up to a fundamental redirection of American policy toward the world's largest and most vexed zone of conflict. All this is occurring without public discussion, without consultation with Congress and without even informing those who are likely to make foreign policy in the next administration. Thus the Clinton State Department is preparing a kind of land mine that will explode in the face of the incoming Bush administration.

                Then 9/11 came along which gave Bush the casus belli he needed to do it.
            •  Short version (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Claudius Bombarnac, Johnny Q

              Text of Malalai Joya's Historical Speech in the Loya Jirga.

              A powerful speech.

              Why do you not take all these criminals to one committee so that we see what they want for this nation.
              And funny. Put all the warlords at one table, let them argue about their committee proposals. Anyone would have gotten the imagery of it.
            •  The Taliban had plenty of opportunity (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              high uintas, sja, Lefty Ladig, Gurnt

              to hand over Bin Laden through the years between 2001 and 2011 and collect a $25 million dollar reward ... and they didn't do it.

              So this statement

              The Taliban would have offered up Bin Laden for a price.
              is blatantly, ridiculously false.
              •  The US government had no intention of letting the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q

                Taliban off the hook. What the Taliban wanted most was recognition as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and funding. The US gov't wanted regime change even before 9/11 under the Clinton administration.

                9/11 became a casus belli to do just that.

                See my post in this diary linked below. Notice the date on the WaPo article.

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                There are many other links between the Taliban and the US government and oil interests well before 9/11. These have all been hashed out and revealed a decade ago on the ng's and blogs. How soon the past is forgotten.

        •  Then lets help them die (12+ / 0-)

          You must understand that the US, contrary to opinion, does not create jihadists. They would exist if we owned no drones and had no overseas bases.

          Complex forces are at work in the Middle East that would continue to operate without US involvement.

          I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

          by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:53:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  US foreign policy is directly responsible for the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snoopydawg, Johnny Q

            conditions which gave rise to terrorists throughout Asia and the MENA.

            Complex forces are at work in the Middle East that would continue to operate without US involvement.
            Of course. Just as occurred in Iran after the overthrow of an elected leader. It's called blow-back,or the law of unforeseen consequences. These can continue for decades.

            The US is not an innocent as you are trying to portray. Much of what it does in the region is by covert operations or proxies.

            The one good thing on the horizon is the fracking which is going on in America. The sooner the country becomes self-sufficient in energy, the sooner it can remove itself from the ME (except for the 800 pound gorilla).

            •  Had Europeans never discovered the (10+ / 0-)

              Western hemisphere, there would still be jihadii in the Middle East.

              The Salafist tradition is very old and the decline of the caliphate post Suleiman almost guarantees a fundamentalist response.

              These forces are quite powerful and the US has no effect on them whatsoever.

              I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

              by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:17:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And we have our own version (6+ / 0-)

                which we call dominionists. They are only a generation or so away from being terrorist-level radicals I think.

                I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

                by pajoly on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:45:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I doubt they would have been flying hijacked jets (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snoopydawg

                into New York skyscrapers. There's a reason why the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were chosen as targets.

                •  Well, duh (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gurnt

                  But now you are arguing that Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed were rational actors making the best choices for the Muslim community.

                  I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

                  by blue aardvark on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:51:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are reading a lot into my statements that (0+ / 0-)

                    aren't there. See my other post for a more detailed response to your post.

                    People, even terrorists, have rationals for what they do. Hitting the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not random targets.

                    See Section 5.2 of the 9/11 Commission Report. Hitting the Pentagon should be self-explanatory. I would suggest you read the entire report if you want to get into the mindset of the 9/11 perpetrators.

                    You can also read Motives for the September 11 attacks. There are many links to other sources.

              •  Your post deserves a better response now that I (0+ / 0-)

                have more time.

                The Salafist tradition is very old and the decline of the caliphate post Suleiman almost guarantees a fundamentalist response.

                These forces are quite powerful and the US has no effect on them whatsoever.

                Where do you get this idea from? Care to give a link?

                I strongly suggest you read the following in its entirety.

                CRS Report for Congress
                Received through the CRS Web
                Order Code RS21695
                Updated January 25, 2006
                The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya

                Summary
                The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent investigations of these attacks have called attention to Islamic puritanical movements known as Wahhabism and Salafiyya.
                ...
                What Is Salafiyya? As noted above, among adherents in general, preference is given to the term “Salafiyya” over “Wahhabism.” These terms have distinct historical roots, but they have been used interchangeably in recent years, especially in the West. Wahhabism is considered by some Muslims as the Saudi form of Salafiyya. Unlike the eighteenth-century Saudi roots of Wahhabism, however, modern Salafi beliefs grew from a reform-oriented movement of the early twentieth century, which developed in various parts of the Islamic world and progressively grew more conservative. In line with other puritanical Islamic teachings, Salafis generally believe that the Quran and the Prophet’s practices (hadith) are the ultimate religious authority in Islam, rather than the subsequent commentaries produced by Islamic scholars that interpret these sources.7 Salafis also generally maintain that they are “the only [Muslim] group that will be saved on Judgment Day.”8 Salafiyya is not a unified movement, and there exists no single Salafi “sect.” However, Salafi interpretations of Islam appeal to a large number of Muslims worldwide — in Africa, Asia, North America, and throughout the Middle East.

                The Use of Violence. According to a number of scholars, the use of violent jihad9 is not inherently associated with puritanical Islamic beliefs. Among certain puritanical Muslims — be they self-described Salafis or Wahhabis — advocacy of jihad is a relatively recent phenomenon and is highly disputed within these groups. Some scholars date the ascendancy of militancy among Salafis to the 1980s war of resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
                ...

              •  it does seem (0+ / 0-)

                as though the religionists in the middle east are bereft of the ability to identify with anyone other than themselves

                and everyone else is the enemy and must be destroyed

                such primitive mores are incomprehensible, that's why we can't make any headway there

            •  you really seem to hate this country. (7+ / 0-)

              You hate the leaders, the policies, the outcomes of every decision. It must be very difficult for you, and I mean that sincerely.

              "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

              by SottoVoce on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:12:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't hate anything. I'm just pointing out the (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco, churchylafemme, snoopydawg, Johnny Q

                results of ill advised foreign policies undertaken by various administrations. How many people have been killed, maimed or displaced by these policies since WWII?

                •  SottoVoice (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Claudius Bombarnac, Johnny Q

                  I agree with CB on the points he brings up.
                  I have brought them up too, and no doubt getting the same flack.
                  It IS our foreign policies going back decades thatcauses them to hate the US.
                  Imagine if the US had coups, invasions and drones and all the other things done to it.
                  If you were invaded and fought back, do you think you would be a terrorist for fighting back?  
                  Would Americans deserve to be renditioned or tortured?  
                  All of you, think about what the US has done to other countries.
                  That does not mean I hate the US.
                  But I do hate what it does to other countries.
                  Coups and invasions are usually done for the corporations.

                  Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

                  by snoopydawg on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:38:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks. I have just finished responding to my (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    snoopydawg, Johnny Q

                    detractors in this thread.

                    It disturbs me that so little is known about the historical facts and machinations that have led up to the current conflicts. It is almost as if these people have dropped in from outer space and have no background knowledge. They don't even know what was written in the 9/11 Commission Report less than a decade ago.

                    Look at all the recommends these people have received. It's classic herd mentality reacting to an emotional issue.

                    •  i agree (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Johnny Q

                      Herd mentality.
                      Folks think he isn't a warmonger, but he has droned and killed more people then Bush did.
                      Kill list?  
                      And people think he is a kind, family man?  
                      Cracks me up.
                      The day he cried for the 20 kids killed at  Sandy Hook, his drones killed over 30 people.
                      20 of them were kids.
                      It amazes me that people think AQ and other terrorists don't have a reason to hate the US.
                      From all the coups, installing brutal dictators, invasions, ect, I would call that country the Great Satan too.
                      Plus the facts of who he put in his cabinets, their interests and backgrounds show me he doesn't give a shit about the 99 percent of us.
                      Does anyone here know he wrote an EO to expand the southern part of keystone?  
                      Why would he do that if he isn't going to approve the rest of it?  
                      He is just another crooked politician imo.
                      Can't stand to listen to him.
                      Hope he doesn't address the nation now.
                      I would rather watch my shows then listen to his lies.

                      Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

                      by snoopydawg on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:00:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  You are too funny! (0+ / 0-)

              I had forgotten the 11-dimensional chess trope in this thread trying to figure out what you were hoping to achieve here. Maybe they could have put Bin Laden in charge of public relations for fracking?

              I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

              by voicemail on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:22:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Bin Laden seemed to care greatly about his (11+ / 0-)

          own survival. So it goes for all the other Al Qaeda leaders as well. The martyr talk is just for the dumb foot soldiers.

      •  this message will forever be unsustainable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme

        .... as long as people devalue the fact that people who are raised to hate will most likely themselves be haters, then murdering people as a deterrent will never work.  It just never works.  It never has.  There's just no scale of bad to worse when someone someone commits murder.  It makes no difference how heinous the crime.  There's always an underlying social issue that causes the ultimate act.  

             The more tired and fed-up that we become when battling endless bouts of terrorism and crime the more likely we will try to justify taking lives to prevent it.  It's the ultimate human weakness and it's been around since before the dark ages.  Hindsight is extremely difficult and tiresome, murder is easy.

        "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."--Justice Louis Brandeis

        by Spiffydigs on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:01:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You attack the US (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, Johnny Q

        And you fucking die.
        But it is ok for the US to attack or drone any nation it wants?  
        Blowback. Heard of it?  
        Do you really think they hate us for our Freedoms?  
        More have been erased since the GWOT started.

        Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

        by snoopydawg on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:47:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, edscan... (0+ / 0-)

          (Teasing of course; your post read like an edscan screed..)

          "Do you really think they hate us for our Freedoms?" Helloooooooooo, strawman.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:59:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Every shred of evidence suggests that (14+ / 0-)

      he was very much in the loop. He had computers. They had data. They had plans on which he was commenting.

      That AQ has metastasized is largely because they are decapitated - and they therefore cannot launch any mission that requires long-term central planning.

      That is good for just about every sentient life form on the planet, including > 99% of Muslims.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:46:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site