Osama bin Laden killed

[Bob]

It's on tv.

https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIpFK0-N61mtRHVCwShKtro6EoYA?docId=3b11ec13b3c945b0bfb66f4571f04fc1

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/01/113442/osama-bin-laden-found-in-pakistan.html


https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569404576297941397558496.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Bob]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden;_ylt=AsOKSe.EzXjvjH6bRu0v0BYJr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTJmcjN1Zm01BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTAyL3VzX2Jpbl9sYWRlbgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNzb3VyY2VhbC1xYWk-

Source: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead

By JULIE PACE, Associated Press – 4 mins ago


WASHINGTON – Al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden is dead and the United States has his body, a person familiar with the developments says.

President Barack Obama is expected to make that announcement from the White House late Sunday night.

The person spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak ahead of the president.


===============
By JULIE PACE, Associated Press – 1 min ago


WASHINGTON – Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, is dead, and the U.S. is in possession of his body, a person familiar with the situation said late Sunday.

President Barack Obama was expected to address the nation on the developments Sunday night.

It was unclear where how bin Laden was killed and how the U.S. captured his body. Officials have long believed bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world, was hiding a mountainous region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The person spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak ahead of the president.
=================

By JULIE PACE, Associated Press – 2 mins ago


WASHINGTON – Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, is dead, and the U.S. is in possession of his body, a person familiar with the situation said late Sunday.

President Barack Obama was expected to address the nation on the developments Sunday night.

Two senior counterterrorism officials confirmed that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan last week. One said bin Laden was killed in a ground operation, not by a Predator drone. Both said the operation was based on U.S. intelligence, and both said the U.S. is in possession of bin Laden's body.

Officials long believed bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world, was hiding a mountainous region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak ahead of the president.

The development comes just months before the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon, orchestrated by bin Laden's al-Qaida organization, that killed more than 3,000 people.

The attacks set off a chain of events that led the United States into wars in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and America's entire intelligence apparatus was overhauled to counter the threat of more terror attacks at home.

Al-Qaida organization was also blamed for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 people and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in Yemen, as well as countless other plots, some successful and some foiled.

[Bob]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676

1 May 2011 Last updated at 22:54 ET

Al-Qaeda leader Bin Laden 'dead'
Al-Qaeda founder and leader Osama Bin Laden is dead, according to US media reports citing officials.

The US is in possession of Bin Laden's body, the reports say. President Barack Obama is due to make a statement shortly.

Mr Bin Laden is top of the US most wanted list.

He is accused of being behind a number of atrocities, including the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.



--------------
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/1/officials-osama-bin-laden-dead/

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/01/national/main20058777.shtml

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/

More of the same.  News stories are appearing all over now.

[Bob]

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42852700/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is dead and the U.S. has his body, says a person familiar with developments.

President Barack Obama was to make the announcement shortly that after searching in vain for bin Laden since he disappeared in Afghanistan in late 2001, the Saudi-born extremist is dead, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
 
Details of the death were sparse. He was killed in a military operation in Afghanistan, according to sources, though it was unclear which countries were involved. CNN reported that the al-Qaida leader was killed in a mansion outside Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.
 
It is a major accomplishment for Obama and his national security team, having fulfilled the goal once voiced by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, to bring to justice the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[Bob]

Looks like CNN had a canned story ready...

https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/bin.laden.obit/index.html?hpt=T1

Osama bin Laden, the face of terror, killed in Pakistan
 

By the CNN Wire Staff

May 1, 2011 11:15 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- The most prominent face of terror in America and beyond, Osama Bin Laden, has been killed in Pakistan, U.S. officials said Sunday night.
 
Bin Laden was the leader of al Qaeda, the terrorist network behind the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. U.S. officials said that their forces have the body of bin Laden.
 
The enormity of the destruction -- the World Trade Center's towers devastated by two hijacked airplanes, the Pentagon partially destroyed by a third hijacked jetliner, a fourth flight crashed in rural Pennsylvania, and more than 3,000 people killed -- gave bin Laden a global presence.
 
The Saudi-born zealot commanded an organization run like a rogue multinational firm, experts said, with subsidiaries operating secretly in dozens of countries, plotting terror, raising money and recruiting young Muslim men -- even boys -- from many nations to its training camps in Afghanistan.
 
He used the fruits of his family's success -- a personal fortune estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars -- to help finance al Qaeda in its quest for a new pan-Islamic religious state. How much bin Laden got in the settlement of the family estate is still a matter of contention. Estimates range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions.
 
Even before September 11, bin Laden was already on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.
 
He had been implicated in a series of deadly, high-profile attacks that had grown in their intensity and success during the 1990s.
 
They included a deadly firefight with U.S. soldiers in Somalia in October 1993, the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed 224 in August 1998, and an attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors in October 2000.
 
Bin Laden eluded capture for years, once reportedly slipping out of a training camp in Afghanistan just hours before a barrage of U.S. cruise missiles destroyed it.
 
On September 11, sources said, the evidence immediately pointed to bin Laden. Within days, those close to the investigation said they had their proof.
 
Six days after the attack, President George W. Bush made it clear Osama bin Laden was the No. 1 suspect.
 
"I want justice," Bush said. "There's an old poster out West that said, 'Wanted, dead or alive.'"
 
Osama bin Laden was born in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1957, the 17th of 52 children in a family that had struck it rich in the construction business.
 
His father, Mohamed bin Laden, was a native of Yemen, who immigrated to Saudi Arabia as a child. He became a billionaire by building his company into the largest construction firm in the Saudi kingdom.
 
As Saudi Arabia became flush with oil money, so, too, did the bin Laden family business, as Osama's father cultivated and exploited connections within the royal family.
 
One of the elder bin Laden's four wives -- described as Syrian in some accounts -- was Osama's mother. The young bin Laden inherited a share of the family fortune at an early age after his father died in an aircraft accident.
 
The bin Ladens were noted for their religious commitment. In his youth, Osama studied with Muslim scholars. Two of the family business' most prestigious projects also left a lasting impression: the renovations of mosques at Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest places.
 
As a young man attending college in Jeddah, Osama's interest in religion started to take a political turn. One of his professors was Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian scholar who was a key figure in the rise of a new pan-Islamic religious movement.
 
Azzam founded an organization to help the mujahedeen fighting to repel the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
 
Bin Laden soon became the organization's top financier, using his family connections to raise money. He left as a volunteer for Afghanistan at 22, joining the U.S.-backed call to arms against the Soviets.
 
He remained there for a decade, using construction equipment from his family's business to help the Muslim guerrilla forces build shelters, tunnels and roads through the rugged Afghan mountains, and at times taking part in battle.
 
In the late 1980s, bin Laden founded al Qaeda, Arabic for "the base," an organization that CNN terrorism analyst and author Peter Bergen says had fairly prosaic beginnings. One of its purposes was to provide documentation for Arab fighters who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, including death certificates.
 
Al Qaeda, under bin Laden's leadership, ran a number of guesthouses for these Arab fighters and their families. It also operated training camps to help them prepare for the fight against the Soviets.
 
In the early 1990s, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, bin Laden turned his sights on the world's remaining superpower -- the United States. War-hardened and victorious, he returned to Saudi Arabia following the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan.
 
In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden declared a "jihad," or "holy war," against the United States.
 
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait provided the next turning point in Osama bin Laden's career.
 
When the United States sent troops to Saudi Arabia for battle against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, bin Laden was outraged. He had offered his own men to defend the Saudi kingdom but the Saudi government ignored his plan.
 
He began to target the United States for its presence in Saudi Arabia, home to the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina. With bin Laden's criticisms creating too much friction with the Saudi government, he and his supporters left for Sudan in 1991.
 
There, according to U.S. officials, al Qaeda began to evolve into a terror network, with bin Laden at its helm. Tapping into his personal fortune, bin Laden operated a range of businesses involved in construction, farming and exporting.
 
Although the U.S. government was unaware of it at the time, bin Laden was already actively working against it.
 
According to court testimony, he sent one of his top lieutenants, Mohammed Atef, to help train Somalis to attack U.S. peacekeeping troops stationed there. Bin Laden would later hint, during an interview with CNN, of his involvement in the deaths of 18 U.S. Army Rangers in 1993 in Mogadishu.
 
Also in 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in New York, killing six and wounding hundreds. Eventually, bin Laden would be named along with many others as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case. The mastermind of the attack, Ramzi Yousef, would later be revealed to have close ties to al Qaeda.
 
In 1996, bin Laden took his war against the United States a step further. By then, he had been stripped of his Saudi citizenship and forced by Sudanese officials, under pressure from the United States, to leave that country. He returned to Afghanistan where he received harbor from the fundamentalist Taliban, who were ruling the country.
 
By then, the United States had begun to recognize a growing threat from bin Laden, citing him as a financier of terrorism in a government report.
 
According to reports, however, the U.S. government passed up a Sudanese government offer to turn over bin Laden, because at the time it had no criminal charges against him. The Saudis, according to an interview with their former intelligence chief in Time magazine, also declined to take custody of bin Laden.
 
In Afghanistan in 1996, bin Laden issued a "fatwa," or a religious order, entitled "Declaration of War Against Americans Who Occupy the Lands of the Two Holy Mosques."
 
"There is no more important thing than pushing the American occupier out," decreed the fatwa, which praised Muslim youths willing to die to accomplish that goal: "Youths only want one thing, to kill (U.S. soldiers) so they can get to Paradise."
 
In his first interview with Western media in 1997, bin Laden told CNN that the United States was "unjust, criminal and tyrannical."
 
"The U.S. today, as a result of the arrogant atmosphere, has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist," he said in the interview. "It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us."
 
In February 1998, he expanded his target list, issuing a new fatwa against all Americans, including civilians.
 
They were to be killed wherever they might be found anywhere in the world, he decreed. This new fatwa announced the creation of the "The World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders" and was co-signed by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of Egypt's al-Jihad terrorist group.
 
Six months later, explosions destroyed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people and injuring 4,000 more.
 
U.S. prosecutors later indicted bin Laden for masterminding those attacks.
 
By the time three hijacked airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, symbols of the U.S. business and military might, bin Laden's terror network had become global in its reach.
 
The organization soon became America's prime target in Bush's war against global terrorism. Bin Laden, its founder, became the most-wanted man in the world.
 
Then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell explained al Qaeda's network this way: "Osama bin Laden is the chairman of the holding company, and within that holding company are terrorist cells and organizations in dozens of countries around the world, any of them capable of committing a terrorist act."
 
"It's not enough to get one individual, although we'll start with that one individual," Powell said.
 
In statements released from his hideouts in Afghanistan after September 11, bin Laden denied al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.
 
A videotape of bin Laden later obtained and released by the U.S. government, however, showed him saying he knew the September 11 attacks were coming, chuckling and gloating about their toll. Even with his knowledge of the construction trade, he said with a smile, he did not expect the twin towers of the World Trade Center to collapse completely.
 
Speaking in an earlier video recording that was first broadcast over the Arabic-language television network Al-Jazeera, bin Laden said America is "filled with fear from the north, south, east and west. Thank God for that."
 
"These events have split the world into two camps -- belief and disbelief," he said. "America will never dream or know or taste security or safety unless we know safety and security in our land and in Palestine."
 
Bin Laden had taken advantage of his time in Afghanistan, cementing his ties to the Taliban.
 
He was particularly close to Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. He built a mansion in Kandahar but spent most of his time on the move around the country, according to intelligence sources.
 
Al Qaeda had a network of training camps and safe houses where recruits from around the world were brought for combat and weapons training and indoctrination.
 
As long as the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, bin Laden, his four wives and more than 10 children were able to avoid capture.
 
Before September 11, the Afghan government refused U.S. requests to turn over bin Laden. "Osama's protection is our moral and Islamic duty," one Taliban official was quoted as saying in July 2001.
 
As the United States bombing campaign helped the Afghan opposition drive the Taliban from power, however, bin Laden's days were numbered.
 
The reward on his head grew to $25 million. Countless leaflets advertising the bounty were dropped from U.S. airplanes, which flew with impunity over Afghan skies.
 
"We're hunting him down," Bush said on November 19, 2001. "He runs and he hides, but as we've said repeatedly, the noose is beginning to narrow. The net is getting tighter."
 
But he eluded U.S. and allied authorities during the war in Afghanistan, vanishing in December 2001, apparently fleeing during the intensive bombing campaign in the rugged Tora Bora region near the border with Pakistan.
 
"He's alive or dead. He's in Afghanistan or somewhere else," then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in April 2002 when asked about bin Laden's whereabouts.
 
No more videos showing bin Laden were released during the spring and summer of 2002 and there was speculation that he may have died during U.S. bombing raids in Afghanistan.
 
But audiotapes released in October and November 2002 and broadcast on Al-Jazeera were allegedly were from him. U.S. government experts analyzed the tapes and said the voice on the tapes was almost certainly bin Laden's.
 
On February 11, 2002, a new audio message purportedly from bin Laden called on Muslims around the world to show solidarity against U.S.-led military action in Iraq.
 
The tape was broadcast on Al Jazeera, which originally denied its existence. The voice on tape added that any nation that helps the United States attack Iraq, "(Has) to know that they are outside this Islamic nation. Jordan and Morocco and Nigeria and Saudi Arabia should be careful that this war, this crusade, is attacking the people of Islam first."

[Bob]

Another history but nothing new.

https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-idUSTRE7410D320110502




ABC News
https://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/22309266

[starlady]

There are some obituaries one reads with great pleasure. 


--s.

[pianisten1989]

The republicans have to be piiiiissed! That a democrat, and even worse, black guy managed to kill him! Now that's just wrong!

I hope he enjoys his time with the virgines (Which most probably are really fat and hairy dudes, who's been sitting at the computer their whole life)

[birba]

And it took them 10 years?!?!?!  I think there's more behind this then I want to know...

[thalbergmad]

And it took them 10 years?!?!?!  I think there's more behind this then I want to know...

The possibility exists that he was close to being captured several times, but was tipped off by the Pakistanis.

It appears this time the Pakistanis were not aware of the American plans, so they got him.

Thal

[dlipatti]

And they've reportedly dumped his body into the ocean? Without taking any pictures of him dead? I'll wait at least until I see a believable photo.

And I'm with birba on this. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but there are a lot of loose threads that need to be solved in this case. Most likely, I think we'll never know the whole truth.

[Bob]

They probably have pictures but haven't released them yet.  I read an article that said he got shot twice in the left side of the head.  Might not be too pretty.  
... I just heard "once in the head, one in the chest" on the news just now.

They've got the DNA.  And probably pictures.  If the U.S. follows the Islamic law then the U.S. can't be criticized.  And they're saying it's so there's no grave site "shine" for radical people to gather around.  I'm wondering if any will go out searching for the body, IF the U.S. actually dumped the body off in the Arabian Sea.  That's what I read.  I also wouldn't be too surprised if the U.S. followed all the Islamic traditions of putting the body out of to sea... followed by recapturing it.  Or disposing of it in some way that it would never be found.  

Nine years, 7 months, 20 days it took.

I can't believe Pakistan didn't know where he was. I don't think they're going to do much about the U.S. stepping on their toes like that though.  They're stuck.  Haha.

I would have thought if he weren't living in a cave, he'd be living with another family, blending in that way.  

I wonder when I'll reach my saturation point for this.  It's going to be heavy in the news for awhile.

Haha... Good thing they waited until after the royal wedding.  

[Bob]

https://mashable.com/2011/05/02/live-tweet-bin-laden-raid/

 

[i_am_joey_jo]

  Why wouldn't they keep the body as proof but instead dump it into the Ocean where it would never be found?  Couldn't they forsee that people would ask questions about this?

  You'd think that a Navy Seal team who can raid a compound and not have even one member shot could take him alive, after all he has all the information about AL Quaida and knows where every cell is and what they are planning, so why did they have to shoot him?

  I'm with Donald Trump on this one.  I'm not going to believe it until I see the death certificate!

[Bob]

Because it would insult all of Islam.  I think the U.S. followed all the rules they could so as not to offend anyone, except Pakistan who couldn't apparently figure out they had a terrorist living there. 

I'm waiting for the pictures to appear.  They had to have taken pictures.  They've already released pictures of the bedroom with blood on the floor.

I read he wanted to die by getting shot, so he got what he wanted too.  Although I'm kind of wondering if they don't have some kind of smoke bomb thing, without the smoke, that would just cause everyone in a room to pass out. 

[allthumbspiano]

The republicans have to be piiiiissed! That a democrat, and even worse, black guy managed to kill him! Now that's just wrong!

I hope he enjoys his time with the virgines (Which most probably are really fat and hairy dudes, who's been sitting at the computer their whole life)

What does someone being black have to do with anything?

[birba]

Now it's been discovered that the famous photo they published of "dead" bin laden was an old photo montage?!

[Bob]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110503/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_us

That says they didn't release photos yet.

"U.S. officials say the photographic evidence shows bin Laden was shot above his left eye, blowing away part of his skull.

He was also shot in the chest, they said."

Yeah... Not pretty.  I wonder how many times he was shot too.




"According to the U.S. account, the assault team came away with hard drives, DVDs, documents and more..."
The big question regarding that technology is of course... Mac or PC?

[Bob]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110502/ts_dailybeast/13844_osamabinladenphotosishereallydead;_ylt=AuzyPGG6wCH6BfZIu6kjAewDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTNsa29hOHZzBGFzc2V0A2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMjAxMTA1MDIvMTM4NDRfb3NhbWFiaW5sYWRlbnBob3Rvc2lzaGVyZWFsbHlkZWFkBHBvcwMxNARzZWMDeW5fYXJ0aWNsZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA29zYW1hYmlubGFkZQ--

I see.  The Daily Beast....    What a name.

[Bob]

Type this into Google Maps.

osama bin laden, pakistan

[birba]

Excellent!  I hadn't thought of that.  He was killed years ago, but in order to keep money pumping out of the war machine and justify our involvement in Afghanistan, they kept him "alive" through false video tapes.  sort of explains it all.  And now that Pakistan wants to finally rid themselves of all this, it was time to "kill" him.

[oxy60]

Easy folks. Let's wait a while and let the story play out. With the number of people involved it will be very difficult to keep anything a secret. Our boys did a great job even with a stalled chopper.

[pianowolfi]

[oxy60]

Someone mentioned that it took ten years to find him.

In terms of finding international wanted criminals, ten years is rather quick. There are wanted Americans living openly (just not in the phone book) all over Europe. Also let's not forget the Nazis living in Italy and Spain who will never be caught.

Most of these people had limited resources to hide themselves. Not millions of dollars and followers to rely on.

He could have done better than only making it ten years!

[Bob]

We'll never know but I wonder if there would have been any other major disasters in the future that were prevented by killing him now.  Under Clinton they tried to kill with missles I think but it didn't work out.  I think that was in 1998.

[zheer]

We'll never know but I wonder if there would have been any other major disasters in the future that were prevented by killing him now.  Under Clinton they tried to kill with missles I think but it didn't work out.  I think that was in 1998.

That's true Bob, they did try and fail. Well it was like Saddam's death, we never thought it would happen, but it eventually did. Is the world safer? a little possibly, but him killed was more about justice.

[thalbergmad]

I have gradually changed my stance over the years and have formed the opinion that the best way to defeat terrorists is to deny then a cause.

I hope Bin Laden's death brings some kind of closure to the many people affected by his acts, but his demise will not lessen the threat against my Country until we stop invading Countries and killing people, stop trying to impose our will on other Countries and stop taking sides in Civil Wars.

By doing these things, we are simply spawning generations of potential suicide bombers and giving thousands a reason to hate us that will last for a hundred years.

Some will celebrate his death, but I ask you who has more blood on their hands. Bin Laden, Blair or Bush??

Thal

[djealnla]

Some will celebrate his death, but I ask you who has more blood on their hands. Bin Laden, Blair or Bush??

Out of these three, definitely Bush.

[ongaku_oniko]

I have gradually changed my stance over the years and have formed the opinion that the best way to defeat terrorists is to deny then a cause.

Perhaps so, but how do you suggest achieveing this?

We live in a greedy world with scarce resources. There will always be the people who take advantage of others and the people being taken advantage of.

I don't think it's possible to eliminate terrorists, or the cause.

[thalbergmad]

I don't think it's possible to eliminate terrorists, or the cause.

You will never eliminate it, but there are better ways of dealing with it.

Take our previous Labour government for instance. They start a war based on a pack of lies and tell us it is a war against terrorism. At the same time, they allow thousands of people into our Country that they know absolutely nothing about and then enshrine European Human Rights into our law, which makes it almost impossible to remove any terrorists from our Country.

So whilst our Military actions are causing death and building up hatred against us, we allow terrorists to stay in our Country and pay them benefits to make sure they are comfortable.

If there is a worse way of dealing with terrorism, I would like to know it.

Thal

[Bob]

Imagine how dragged out it would have been if they captured him alive.  Probably more useful, but everyone would have been arguing and getting ticked off about that. 

[ongaku_oniko]

You will never eliminate it, but there are better ways of dealing with it.

Take our previous Labour government for instance. They start a war based on a pack of lies and tell us it is a war against terrorism. At the same time, they allow thousands of people into our Country that they know absolutely nothing about and then enshrine European Human Rights into our law, which makes it almost impossible to remove any terrorists from our Country.

So whilst our Military actions are causing death and building up hatred against us, we allow terrorists to stay in our Country and pay them benefits to make sure they are comfortable.

If there is a worse way of dealing with terrorism, I would like to know it.

Thal

Just Curious, which country is this?

Perhaps it is because of my own selfish tendencies. But I think immigration is a great thing. I mean if you have these elite fortresses where the average income is 10x higher than the rest of the world, but no one from more unfortunate backgrounds is allowed to enter this elite group, don't you think that brews a lot of jealousy and reason for terrorism?

I think that only when the world is truly united, when there are no more countries, and everyone worked together, when the average income everywhere is the same, when racism is completely obliterated will terrorism deminish. Not disappear completely, but at least deminish. I think this is possible to achieve, but highly unlikely.

[oxy60]

Idealism aside about rich and poor.

We are dealing with men who have NEVER been told no. As they were growing up every women catered to their every desire and now as adults they will kill you if you are a women who violates their codes.

Would someone in the UK care to reveal the number of "honor" killings and other acts too horrible to mention here? How long as civilized people will we tolerate these abuses on our doorsteps?

We don't need to run around the desert shooting at people. We need to civilize a generation.

[fleetfingers]

I think that only when the world is truly united, when there are no more countries, and everyone worked together, when the average income everywhere is the same, when racism is completely obliterated will terrorism deminish. Not disappear completely, but at least deminish. I think this is possible to achieve, but highly unlikely.

And who do you propose to be the ruler of this hypothetical united world order? Who would regulate our incomes to ensure they are fair? Who would set the requirements for labor and check to make sure everyone is "working together"? What sorts of goals would we be "working together" toward? Can you imagine nearly seven billion people spread over the face of the earth being common in purpose? Seriously....I mean, it may sound good in theory, at first, but think it through....NOT a good idea!

[thalbergmad]

Would someone in the UK care to reveal the number of "honor" killings and other acts too horrible to mention here? How long as civilized people will we tolerate these abuses on our doorsteps?

There have been several instances in the news and probably a lot more that have not been reported. As you say, running around the desert shooting people solves nothing.

I do not particularly care what people do in their own Country. I am much more concerned what they do in mine.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Perhaps it is because of my own selfish tendencies. But I think immigration is a great thing. I mean if you have these elite fortresses where the average income is 10x higher than the rest of the world, but no one from more unfortunate backgrounds is allowed to enter this elite group, don't you think that brews a lot of jealousy and reason for terrorism?

Immigration can be a great thing if you have the space and infastructure to cope. In England, we already have 3 million people on Council Housing waiting lists.

I don't think being part of an "elite group" causes terrorism, it is when that group tries to impose its will on others.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I think that only when the world is truly united, when there are no more countries, and everyone worked together, when the average income everywhere is the same, when racism is completely obliterated will terrorism deminish.

This would only happen if we were attacked by Mars.

Thal

[ongaku_oniko]

And who do you propose to be the ruler of this hypothetical united world order? Who would regulate our incomes to ensure they are fair? Who would set the requirements for labor and check to make sure everyone is "working together"? What sorts of goals would we be "working together" toward? Can you imagine nearly seven billion people spread over the face of the earth being common in purpose? Seriously....I mean, it may sound good in theory, at first, but think it through....NOT a good idea!

There is no need to regulate income; merely redistribute technology around the world such that the same work will get more or less the same pay all over the world.

Who the "ruler" is I've no idea, if people were intelligent, we wouldn't need a ruler. Unforunately, most people aren't. Still, how are "rulers" chosen now? That's how it will be chosen then.

Think of the current countries as states or provinces. That's what I meant. I'm not saying everyone will earn the same amount, either. Simply that the average income in different places will be more similar, and people are free to travel around. That's all.

thal: It's as likely as your theory for eliminating the cause.

And you know what? Being apathetic about others isn't gonna help stop terrorism.

[ongaku_oniko]

And who do you propose to be the ruler of this hypothetical united world order? Who would regulate our incomes to ensure they are fair? Who would set the requirements for labor and check to make sure everyone is "working together"? What sorts of goals would we be "working together" toward? Can you imagine nearly seven billion people spread over the face of the earth being common in purpose? Seriously....I mean, it may sound good in theory, at first, but think it through....NOT a good idea!

To respond more thoroughly to this, there are a few things you need to realize:

Not being realistic does not mean it's not a good idea. I understand that it may not be realistic, because people are inherently greedy. This does not mean, however, that if such a state was ever achieved, that it would not be good.

I did think it through. Not having countries is a good thing. Perhaps it's not good for the people who are in these comfortably devoloped countries. But for the whole of mankind, more people will benefit than not. When I said work together, I don't really mean working towards a certain goal; I mean work together as in not working against each other. How much money is spent every year on spying, sabatoging and other useless operations on other countries? The money could be well spent elsewhere.

Just think of current countries as provinces and states. That's all.

I think that westerners are so brainwashed against communism that any "working together" type of suggestion raises a red flag. But communism itself isn't bad, it's just impossible to achieve. But not being able to be achieved doesn't mean it's bad.

[fleetfingers]

I agree with you that commonality among all people would be a good thing and that the world would be a peaceful place. I do believe that the rich should be generous and live well below their means, giving freely of their substance to those less fortunate. But I disagree with communism and other ideas like it, because it takes away individuals' freedom. Peaceable living has to come from the bottom up from GOOD people because they want it, not from the top down from intelligent people. Intelligence is powerful and desirable, but it can be used either for good or evil. By itself, it is not the answer. I don't disagree with communism because it's not achievable; I disagree with it because it is the wrong means to a noble end.

Hmmm...and I think that the attempt to achieve it will not end well. 

I have not been brainwashed (funny how quickly people throw out that term when someone disagrees with them). I am only thirty and didn't even know anything about communism until my early twenties. People used to frequently warn against it, but not in my lifetime; not in my area. I only know what I've read in recent years, and my conclusions are my own.

[ongaku_oniko]

It's just that media does portray communism to be worse than it is; many people hate communism to the bone while not even knowing what it's about. That is brainwashing.

It's just like how the USSR and PRC brainwashes people to think that communism is good.

And of course, not everyone is brainwashed. If you've not been, that's great.

Your point is valid, of course, but freedom is relative. Do you really think we live in a free world now? Well, in my swim club I commented that I disagree with homosexuality. Guess what, I was kicked out. After being there for over 6 years, I was kicked out because of a comment that was not even an offensive one; just a comment saying that I, personally, do not agree with homosexuality.

Is that really freedom of speech?

The fact is, in any stable society, there can't be true freedom. True freedom implies chaos. I mean, would you really want to live in a world where people looted and killed and raped everywhere, just because they're free to do so? Maybe you haven't been brainwashed, but the concept of freedom is really a deceiving one. It sounds nice, but a look into it shows that it is undesirable.
Another example: Take a devout Christian and a drunk. The Christian is not allowed to overdrink because of his beliefs. Is he free? No, he is restricted by christianity to not over drink. But is the drunk, who is not restricted by such moral guidance free? Well, look at how much money they have to spent to acquire alcohol. How much of their lives are wasted getting drunk. Are they free? Not really.

I'm not here to promote religion, but it really does show that "freedome" isn't always "free". We, as people, have to play a certain role in society no matter what kind of a society it is. To say that communism implies no freedom is wrong. Communism offers a different set of freedoms than what we currently enjoy. There are freedoms that a communist state will have that we don't, just as freedoms that we have that they won't. To simply say that communism is bad because of a lack of freedom isn't accurate.

[fleetfingers]

many people hate communism to the bone while not even knowing what it's about.

I don't think that is fair. For every person who hates communism while knowing nothing about it, there is probably someone who loves it while knowing nothing about it. If you don't give people the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are not blindly following an ideology, you cannot have a serious debate.

Your point is valid, of course, but freedom is relative. Do you really think we live in a free world now?

Regarding freedom: My parents always taught me that I had the freedom to make choices, but that I did not have the freedom to choose the consequences.

Your first example, in which you were kicked out of your swim club for something you said, shows how we are subject to the consequences that an organization places upon our actions. Was this a private swim club? If so, they only have the power to kick you out of their club. What if it was the government who would not let you say that, and the consequence was a fine, jail time or whatever else they deemed an appropriate consequence? Giving too much power to a government is a scary thing. Who knows what they will do with it.

Your second example of drinking has nothing to do with government, but instead illustrates that we are not in control of the natural consequences of our choices. The person who chooses to overdrink may become an alcoholic and a slave to his addiction. Christianity is not alone in warning people of the dangers of overdrinking. The person who chooses to listen to those warnings and not overdrink is indeed free - free to make the choice not to get drunk and free from the consequences of overdrinking.

By the way, I am sorry about your swim club. I wish they would be more tolerant of differing opinions.

[ongaku_oniko]

I don't think that is fair. For every person who hates communism while knowing nothing about it, there is probably someone who loves it while knowing nothing about it. If you don't give people the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are not blindly following an ideology, you cannot have a serious debate.

Regarding freedom: My parents always taught me that I had the freedom to make choices, but that I did not have the freedom to choose the consequences.

Your first example, in which you were kicked out of your swim club for something you said, shows how we are subject to the consequences that an organization places upon our actions. Was this a private swim club? If so, they only have the power to kick you out of their club. What if it was the government who would not let you say that, and the consequence was a fine, jail time or whatever else they deemed an appropriate consequence? Giving too much power to a government is a scary thing. Who knows what they will do with it.

Your second example of drinking has nothing to do with government, but instead illustrates that we are not in control of the natural consequences of our choices. The person who chooses to overdrink may become an alcoholic and a slave to his addiction. Christianity is not alone in warning people of the dangers of overdrinking. The person who chooses to listen to those warnings and not overdrink is indeed free - free to make the choice not to get drunk and free from the consequences of overdrinking.

By the way, I am sorry about your swim club. I wish they would be more tolerant of differing opinions.

Probably. As I've said, the past USSR and the current PRC does have a lot of propaganda as well. I'm saying that these people exist, I'm not assuming that everyon I meet falls into these categories. If you say you're not, I will gladly believe so.

with your definition of freedom, I'm not sure how communism would not be free. If communism was agreed upon by the people, everything that comes after would be the consequence, no? So as long as communism wasn't forced, it's free?

[thinkgreenlovepiano]

Is that really freedom of speech?

The fact is, in any stable society, there can't be true freedom. True freedom implies chaos. I mean, would you really want to live in a world where people looted and killed and raped everywhere, just because they're free to do so? Maybe you haven't been brainwashed, but the concept of freedom is really a deceiving one. It sounds nice, but a look into it shows that it is undesirable.
 

Ok I wasn't going to reply because my brain is totally drained but this discussion kind of interested me... because I just wrote an essay on this! But I'm just throwing in my 2 cents, not trying to debate What I'm about to write probably won't make sense. I'm just exercising my freedom of speech

I DO NOT* think that doing whatever you want and getting away with it is true freedom at all. True freedom is the ability to choose to do what is good/ right.
When people kill/loot/rape etc, they would be trapped by the negative consequences of their actions, so they are not really free through their actions. They would also be infringing upon the rights and freedom of others. There is no freedom in such a society, only oppression.

A lot of times I feel like people who promote "rights" and "freedom" only want rights for themselves. They forget about the rights and freedoms of others. Which is contradictory.

[ongaku_oniko]

Ok I wasn't going to reply because my brain is totally drained but this discussion kind of interested me... because I just wrote an essay on this! But I'm just throwing in my 2 cents, not trying to debate What I'm about to write probably won't make sense. I'm just exercising my freedom of speech

I don't not think that doing whatever you want and getting away with it is true freedom at all. True freedom is the ability to choose to do what is good/ right.
When people kill/loot/rape etc, they would be trapped by the negative consequences of their actions, so they are not really free through their actions. They would also be infringing upon the rights and freedom of others. There is no freedom in such a society, only oppression.

A lot of times I feel like people who promote "rights" and "freedom" only want rights for themselves. They forget about the rights and freedoms of others. Which is contradictory.

I don't not think? Sorry, I just can't wrap my mind around that phrase.

I don't think that if you have to choose what is right that it's "freedom". If you have to chose something, that's not freedom, is it? Besides, What is good/right anyway?

I don't think it's possible tonot infringe on other people's rights. Well, it depends on what those rights are in the first place.

But your last paragraph, I whole heartly agree.

[thinkgreenlovepiano]

I don't not think? Sorry, I just can't wrap my mind around that phrase.

I don't think that if you have to choose what is right that it's "freedom". If you have to chose something, that's not freedom, is it? Besides, What is good/right anyway?

I don't think it's possible tonot infringe on other people's rights. Well, it depends on what those rights are in the first place.

But your last paragraph, I whole heartly agree.

Aie I told you I was tired! I *do not* think...
so freedom is *not* having a choice?  
I knew you were going to ask what is good/ right anyway. I don't have all the answers, obviously   Buuut I don't think it's an opinion thing. For example, killing people would be wrong, right?

[ongaku_oniko]

Was killing Osama bin Laden wrong then?

is it wrong to kill someone if he will kill you otherwise?

I would say yes to those questions, but many wouldn't. What is right and what is wrong isnt very clear cut. Many people say that it's cultural. For example, in some african cultures, cannibalism isn't wrong.

I hope there is a universal right or wrong, but we certainly haven't found it yet.

I'm not sure what you mean by so freedom is not having a choice, but if you're asking me what I think freedom is, I have to say I'm not sure.

[thinkgreenlovepiano]

Was killing Osama bin Laden wrong then?

is it wrong to kill someone if he will kill you otherwise?

I would say yes to those questions, but many wouldn't. What is right and what is wrong isnt very clear cut. Many people say that it's cultural. For example, in some african cultures, cannibalism isn't wrong.

I hope there is a universal right or wrong, but we certainly haven't found it yet.
 

No I definitely don't think self defense is wrong!

But I don't think what is right or wrong is just  a cultural thing. Yes we come from different cultures, but we're all humans and reality and the certain consequence of our actions are the same no matter what our culture is. It's important to maintain/respect different cultures... personally I'm fascinated by other cultures, and I'm one of those multiculturalism promoting type people.

But I think as a human race we should have a higher more universal standard than just our own culture.  I mean think about genocides. Slavery. Racism.
 Just because one culture thinks they are superior to another and are justified in killing/ oppressing them doesn't make it right. Just because a culture believes eating people brings them good luck doesn't make it so.

There has to be something universal. I have never heard of a culture where courage and responsibility and kindness is condemned, and greed and dishonesty and disloyalty were actively promoted. I don't think a society like that would even survive.

 

Yeah I was asking you what you thought freedom was. You said that "if you have to choose something, that's not freedom, right?" That's what I was referring to

Anyway now this discussion is totally off topic!  I been thinking about these kind of things for years so it's hard for me not to go on a rant.

Back to Osama bin Laden!

[ongaku_oniko]

Sorry, I guess I was braindead too. What I meant was, if you have to choose something, as in a particular something, not a general something. Like "If you have to choose a, that's not freedom". If you have to choose good, that's not freedom. That's what I meant.


by culture, there's also a time factor. People of a thousand years ago had different morals than we do now. You're only looking at the really obvious things like murder, but morals go much beyond this, and there are many, many gray areas. Like Homosexuality, for example. Abortion. Etc.

[john90]

I hope Bin Laden's death brings some kind of closure to the many people affected by his acts, but his demise will not lessen the threat against my Country until we stop invading Countries and killing people, stop trying to impose our will on other Countries and stop taking sides in Civil Wars.

...
Some will celebrate his death, but I ask you who has more blood on their hands. Bin Laden, Blair or Bush??

Some countries feel 30 years behind "the west" in many ways, and the same country can feel 50 years ahead in others. It is not always clear which aspects of the country belong in a given category. I think latitude in terms of 'progress' should be looked at with say +/- 100 years margin for error.