Because it would seem some of my comments on this thread have been misinterpreted, I will reply to a few mis-characterizations of things I have written, in an attempt to make clear what I was expressing in the original comments.
Conspiracy theories or not, you can argue whether or not he was afflicted with sudden acute lead poisoning. The unfortunate problem I see in this is that they don't seem to have involved anyone outside of the US in the identification. Dumping his body at sea is certainly a great idea for keeping his burial place from becoming another holy city but it also means that without a body and without independent confirmation, there will be wannabe's popping up all over, claiming to be the "real" guy. It would seem they have enough stored video of the him to play the Weekend at Bernie's game for years.
1) I never stated I believed Bin Laden hadn't been killed in this recent attack. I agreed that there have been and can be arguments made that he died a long time ago (but I made no comment on how valid those arguments are). What I was commenting on was that by not providing for some neutral verification, or at least a "second witness" in the form of another country, the US had weakened its claim to have killed him in the eyes of the world at large. I agreed with the need to dispose of the body at sea but expressed the view that having done so without any other verification would open the door to imposter's claiming they were him. Keep in mind however that all of this comment was made BEFORE Al Queda confirmed his death.
Interesting take on it. I hadn't considered that. All the more interesting in light of the Canadian decision on the advanced fighters.
I have to agree with the question Shakerod raises at the beginning of his post. The argument "look how many attacks we prevented" is a bit like the old Bert and Ernie sketch in Sesame Street where Bert asks Ernie why Ernie has a banana in his ear. Ernie replies that it keeps the alligators away. Bert remarks that he doesn't see any alligators and Ernie's reply is "See, it works!" or words to that effect. Most of the intrusive and abusive tactics resorted to by government are much more effective at controlling the general population and giving us a false sense of security than they are at actually stopping anything. If the government was really serious about travel security instead of controlling the citizenry, it would adopt the Israeli model and stop using high tech gadgets to solicit our submission and coerce our conformity.
Personally, I would prefer a bit more risk and a lot less violation of my civil liberties.
Ben Franklin was pretty damn smart.
2) My comment about security, and specifically airport security, was that most of the methods being employed are designed more for show and control, to give the population a false sense of security and condition them to surrender a little bit of freedom at a time. If the government was serious about airport security and did not have other agenda's, it would adopt the Israeli security model. I believe a serious argument can be made that the Israeli's know a lot more about airline security than anyone else, as the threat they face is existential.
That is what is very troubling about all of this. I have now heard of at least 6 different versions of what happened, some of them so different as to be impossible to reconcile with one another. Granted, different eye witnesses would see different details of the event but the broad outline should be the same, especially since we are referring to eyewitnesses accounts from people who are trained to be highly observant. It's as if some of the crew of the Titanic reported that the bow struck an iceberg and some reported the ship backed into an iceberg.
Unfortunately, them agreeing he is dead doesn't really put to rest the question of discrepancies in the accounts. Nor does it speak to the question of when he actually died. There is a reasonable case to be made (not saying I agree with it, but it is reasonable) that Al Queda had as much to gain as anyone from the belief that he was still alive.
3) I never wrote that the differences in the accounts of the attack indicated they were ALL wrong, but rather that the differences in the "official" versions, not the media versions, were troubling and difficult to reconcile and because of that, raised many questions. I stated that Al Queda confirming he was dead didn't really address why there were discrepancies in the official accounts of what happened. I also wrote that there was an argument to be made that Al Queda had much to gain in the past from keeping alive the belief that he was not dead. Notice however that I said that I was NOT saying I agree with the argument, just that it was a reasonable point.
Without Police we would have absolute anarchy.....you wouldn't be able to sit in your little computer room typing away....you'd be up in arms trying to defend your property, possessions and loved ones from those who would take everything from you if there were no laws.
I'm not saying that you fall in this category, I believe that you are just a hyper-paranoid person looking for conspiracies with everything you do, but when people are afraid to call the Police...they usually have good reason to because they're involved in things that would easily put them behind bars for long periods. ...
4) No, I don't fall into that category. Police, when they operate as guardians of the law, fulfill a very important purpose in society. I have however seen firsthand the police operate as subverter's of the law, whether, to name a couple of instances, it is protecting one of their own from the consequences of an illegal act or intimidating a jury to deliver a verdict in their favor. When a policeman functions within the law, he has my complete respect. However, I hold him to the highest possible standard of conduct because he wields the power of the State. When he does so for personal gain or the thrill of the power he has, he tarnishes all in his profession and brings disrepute to the State.
Accusing someone of being a law breaker if they question the actions of the police is an unworthy attempt to stifle debate. I have nothing to fear from the proper application of the law. All of us have much to be concerned about if the law is abused by the organs of the State.
As for looking for conspiracies everywhere, only a hyper-paranoid person would do that. I don't think however that it really furthers the debate to call someone names or accuse them of mental illness if they simply question the official government line, are not willing to accept everything the government says at face value and without independent thought. The reductio ad absurdum end of that continuum is the method the KGB had of dealing with those who questioned the official government line by classifying them as insane and incarcerating them in mental institutions. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that anyone here is advocating such policies. As I wrote, the KGB practice was the ridiculous end point of a way of thinking. I just don't think questioning the mental stability of another contributes to the debate.
...
Jnewton, you've been proven wrong over the course of this thread, even Al Queda agrees with the US account of Bin Laden's killing, they have not disputed any of the matters of fact presented....yet you want to dispute it? And as for your arguement as to why the "versions" of events have changed..simple...media releases on major world events ALWAYS trickle down with more and more reliable information given over time. The account of events involved in his killing has evolved over time as more and more information has been released.
5) I'm trying to see where I've been proven wrong. I have not stated that I think the various theories about bin Laden dieing years ago are correct. I have not stated that the US did not recently kill him. I have simply pointed out that some of the recent actions by the US and the subsequent discrepancies in the official government line raise questions and concerns. If all of the discrepancies were from news outlets, I could easily accept the evolution theory stated above. The questions arise because the official versions of events, even of events occurring in the US during the raid, are difficult to reconcile with each other.
Now then, I want everyone involved in this thread to know that I bear no animosity towards any of them. Sometimes, when a debate gets heated, things are written that on further reflection, might not have been. I am quite willing to believe that some of what was written and pointed towards me falls into that category. I'm sure I have also written things in this debate that may have offended or agitated. My apologies for any attacks that might have been perceived as personal, even if unintentional.
Have a peachy day. Be well.
