Osama is dead

[terbang]

One of the guys that I fly with up here is a local (Saudi boy) hes one of these guys who is a real aviation enthusiast, high on enthusiasm but a little short on ambition resulting in his career copilot status. Hes approaching 60 and has flown for just about every private family in Saudi Arabia over the years. A top bloke who I do enjoy flying with.

He once recalled a flight where he flew the Bin Laden family Learjet to Sudan with some of the Bin Laden brothers on board. This was after Osama Bin Laden had denounced Saudi Arabia, but before 911. They were travelling to Sudan to meet with him to settle some family business affairs.

The spoken in Arabic meeting was held onboard the aircraft and mainly discussed family business matters. At the conclusion and when Osama BL was just about to step off the aircraft, one of the brothers asked him to reconsider the direction he was heading and to return to Saudi and resurrect the Bin Laden good name.

Apparently Osama Bin Laden, just replied "to late, I'll see you in heaven" and walked away. The rest is history.

[BoristheBiter]

See .. the two positions you lay out - either a freedom fighter or a religious nut are western positions - they are not mutually exclusive in other thought systems.

??WTF??
I think i will have to read that later after a few beers as that makes no sense.
They are a western position but not mutually exclusive in other thought systems???

So you are saying he is a freedom fighter and religious nut because in his eyes he is right.
Your argument is a bit like saying the KKK are freedom fighters because in their minds they are right so we shouldn't call them complete tossers because they believe it to be true.

[oldrider]

??WTF??
I think i will have to read that later after a few beers as that makes no sense.
They are a western position but not mutually exclusive in other thought systems???

So you are saying he is a freedom fighter and religious nut because in his eyes he is right.
Your argument is a bit like saying the KKK are freedom fighters because in their minds they are right so we shouldn't call them complete tossers because they believe it to be true.

Interestingly enough the bi-election result that Hone is forcing will finally tell us what Maori are "really" thinking! ....

Watch that space, you may be very surprised!

[BoristheBiter]

Interestingly enough the bi-election result that Hone is forcing will finally tell us what Maori are "really" thinking! ....

Watch that space, you may be very surprised!

I hope i will be.

[trustme]

As for Pakistan being complicit in allowing OBL refuge, I just don't see why it's so hard to believe they knew nothing: if he arrived with a small "family" group or merged with an existing family, stayed within the compound (or preferrably indoors) during daylight hours then barring a house to house search how would anyone be any the wiser? It's simple stuff, and as long as he and his crew were disciplined/smart then it would be easy to keep him hidden.

I listened to an interview with retired CIA analyst who had been on OBL trail. He felt it highly likely that Pakistan knew where he was & made a couple of points
1/ To be openly complicit in nailing OBL would not play well with many Pakistanis & could be very disruptive internally
2/ Pakistan has the whip hand in their US relationship. The US needs access through Pakistan to supply their operations in Afghanistan. The Pakis do just enough to keep their nose clean with the US, but no more.
3/ To build a compound like that so close to a concentrated military presence & not be noticed was not credible

[Banditbandit]

??WTF??
I think i will have to read that later after a few beers as that makes no sense.
They are a western position but not mutually exclusive in other thought systems???

So you are saying he is a freedom fighter and religious nut because in his eyes he is right.
Your argument is a bit like saying the KKK are freedom fighters because in their minds they are right so we shouldn't call them complete tossers because they believe it to be true.

No, Im not arguing he is a freedom fighter and a religious nut because inhis eyes he's right ... I'm arguing that the western worldview which you so clearly subscribe to is not the worldview of the majority of the peple who live on this planet.

I'm not sure how to get this idea across to you - it's a major exercise in understanding philosophies, ontologies and worldviews (or the more accurate term weltanschuaang) - a whole pattern of thinking which is coherent within itself. The post would be massive.

The western worldview is coherent within itself (largely) - but it is not the only coherent worldview. There are other ways of seeing the world.

For instance, in the west we value freedom - freedom of religion, freedom of speach, etc etc.

But if a person holds an ontology that includes the Chritian god Yahweh how much freedom do they actually have, given the prescibed rules of the Christian Bible? An aethist such as myself may well ahve more freedom as there is no "Big Brther" looking over my shoulder ready to judge and condemn me.

If the premise that Allah exists is accepted, then the believers are obliged to live by the rules set down by that god - or face the consequences. The problem then moves to how to interpret the rules any God sets down - and no religion has ever reached a consensus on that one.

Clearly, the western sense of freedom is a post-Enlightenment period development and forms a major part of our western, largely secular, world. That is not true of the rest of the world - which holds very different weltanshuaang.

Gawd - a simple explanation and massive post already !!!!

Bugga that for a laugh ... I need some THC.

[BoristheBiter]

No, Im not arguing he is a freedom fighter and a religious nut because inhis eyes he's right ... I'm arguing that the western worldview which you so clearly subscribe to is not the worldview of the majority of the peple who live on this planet.

I'm not sure how to get this idea across to you - it's a major exercise in understanding philosophies, ontologies and worldviews (or the more accurate term weltanschuaang) - a whole pattern of thinking which is coherent within itself. The post would be massive.

The western worldview is coherent within itself (largely) - but it is not the only coherent worldview. There are other ways of seeing the world.

For instance, in the west we value freedom - freedom of religion, freedom of speach, etc etc.

But if a person holds an ontology that includes the Chritian god Yahweh how much freedom do they actually have, given the prescibed rules of the Christian Bible? An aethist such as myself may well ahve more freedom as there is no "Big Brther" looking over my shoulder ready to judge and condemn me.

If the premise that Allah exists is accepted, then the believers are obliged to live by the rules set down by that god - or face the consequences. The problem then moves to how to interpret the rules any God sets down - and no religion has ever reached a consensus on that one.

Clearly, the western sense of freedom is a post-Enlightenment period development and forms a major part of our western, largely secular, world. That is not true of the rest of the world - which holds very different weltanshuaang.

Gawd - a simple explanation and massive post already !!!!

Bugga that for a laugh ... I need some THC.

I had got it i was just making sure it was what you meant.

So at the end of the day he is still a terrorist, and got what was coming to him.
Most of this planet can get along with each other and not go around killing innocent people just to get their point across.

[mashman]

Most of this planet can get along with each other and not go around killing innocent people just to get their point across.

Shame they aren't the ones in power... but how would someone go about getting that point across, hmmmmm... oh yeah, voting ... wonder if there are any alternatives

[Banditbandit]

I had got it i was just making sure it was what you meant.

So at the end of the day he is still a terrorist, and got what was coming to him.
Most of this planet can get along with each other and not go around killing innocent people just to get their point across.

I'm with Mashman ... look at Syria ... Libya ... Myannmar ... and many other brutal regimes. They certainly kill innocent people to get their point across ..

[BoristheBiter]

I'm with Mashman ... look at Syria ... Libya ... Myannmar ... and many other brutal regimes. They certainly kill innocent people to get their point across ..

I would say its more of trying to stay in power more than getting their point across.

I will still stand by my comment as MOST of the world seems to be able to live together.

[jaffaonajappa]

No worries mate - I can hit a the bullseye at 600 yards with an old open sight Lee Enfield .303 ... and I know which way the selctor switch on a M16 goes ...

I find that kinda difficult to believe.....600 yards on an open sight LE .303? Unless you mean one shot in ten or so....

Oh wait. My bad. Just read your other posts....you moved out from under your bridge - Troll?

[Maki]

So killing innocent people is bad? Then the worlds most brutal and reprehensible regime must be the one that kills the most innocents, right? Now, I wonder which regime that is....

[carbonhed]

So killing innocent people is bad? Then the worlds most brutal and reprehensible regime must be the one that kills the most innocents, right? Now, I wonder which regime that is....

Commie, leftie, scumsucking pigs?????? Do I get a prize?

[Maki]

Commie, leftie, scumsucking pigs?????? Do I get a prize?

No, that's not a country.

[oneofsix]

So killing innocent people is bad? Then the worlds most brutal and reprehensible regime must be the one that kills the most innocents, right? Now, I wonder which regime that is....

who's definition of innocent?
Can't help thinking OBL, Taliban and others like them are where the christian world was at the time of the spanish inquisition and the dark ages, before we grew up and became the horrible western world.