Hannibal: Several reasons, including attempting to sabotage the site IIRC. There are parts of his case that I think are best left out of forum discussion, as it caused a ton of uproar, tension, controversy, and anti-mod angst that was quite annoying and discouraging for people from participating in the forum that lasted for like a month and a half. Maybe longer. It was like a war. Brother turned against brother. Neighbor turned against neighbor. There was little fun in the forum. Which actually leads better into my next point than it should.
Jamie: Regarding your video, it would be nice if people could keep their composure and realize that point when these sort of things come around, but that message is lacking very heavily in a great deal of Western circles.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/after-paris-attacks-a-darker-mood-toward-islam-emerges-in-france.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
A great deal of people want to see the reaction and don't look enough into it to know that they're fueling the fire of terrorism. And they don't want to know either. These same people are driven by fear, they're reactionaries, and it is that fear that keeps them from thinking rationally enough to see those sort of things. They see one group that is different from themselves claiming to be part of another group that is also different. When the former group murders their people, their reaction is to wish harm upon both the former and latter groups in retaliation. The first thing that comes to kind is not, "Were they really telling the truth about their association to that group?" This is amplified by the general vilification of Islam by certain Western groups that had already been taking place. One could call it shameful, but it is how things are.

Krellin isn't silenced or banned, lol.

"Remember that 9/11 occurred before the U.S. really bombed anywhere in the Middle East. To the best of my knowledge, Osama bin Laden's primary justification for 9/11 was the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil. "

Seriously? You go on to comparing the Saudi regime to germany of Korea?

Do you know how many people have been beheaded this year by the Saudis?

Ok, back to your point, Osama was trained by the CIA before the US started bombing anyone. So yes, his terrorist tactics were A OK so long as they were directed at the Soviet Union.

But as you say his main gripe was with US influence in the middle east. So lets look at that; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and Israel get huge amounts of military aid. (I wouldn't be surprised if Syria got a huge amount of military aid from Russia, making these client states an extention of the cold war until the 80s at least)

What did these client states do with their weapons? Well Egypt was a beutal military dictatorship, it suppressed religious groups, and in doing so encouraged violent reprisals (ref: the muslim brotherhood) and is now slowly coming toward a more democratic state as the mulitary tries to avoid civil war. I'm guessing they are still arresting journalists.

Israel, Palestine, openair prison, illegal blockade, annexing land... Israel is the one liberal democracy in the region (with the possible ? of Turkey) and is a great place to live; feels very safe - for people from South Africa. If it were not for the Israel-Palestinian conflict i would have no issues with military aid to Israel in principle, except then the US went and gave them nuclear weapons (this is an open secret, because there isn't any point in giving them nuclear weapons to use as a deterent if you don't tell anyone)

Iraq was the great US ally after the Iranian revolution, with US support they invade Iran in the 80s causing one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent middle eastern history. Iraq had far superior weaponary but Iran had numbers, so those numbers died. And the war stalemated for nearly a decade. (After which Saddam decided he deserved Kuwait for being such a leal ally, and the US said no, enter US bombing in defence of a fairly just cause; stopping a dictator you created from taking over the region - then came sanctions which were working, but left most Iraqis in desperate poverty.)

Finally Saudi Arabia, the crown in your foreign policy achievements. The Saudis are a min contributor to OPEC and thus control global oil prices; their House of Saud and their Wahabi religious allies (read:fanatics) are guilty of oppression a home and terrorism abroad. Wahabism is something you can look up yourself, but it calls for violence against enemies of Islam. The Saudis are one of the few absolute monarchies left in the world, and can only exist through oppression and violence against their own people.

They support ISIS in an attempt to win Syria away from Iran and use American oil money (read:blood money) and guns to do it.

Even before the US decided to invade Iraq (despite having no terrorists there before the invasion) Saudi Arabia was brutal, and Osama Bin Laden was right to want to see an end to US influence in his country.

Imagine Brazil funded the republican candidate for President and lent him money in exchange for US oil reserves, positioned troops on US soil (just in case Mexico got uppity) and helped oppress US citizens. Now imagine not wanting to see an end to Brazilian influence in the US, go on, i dare you!

That said, i don't support how he went about it. But likewise, i don't support the SEAL team's murder of this man. Had he been caught and tried for his crimes, it would have been described as the show trial of the century, and become a rallying point for Extremist terror groups, so i understand WHY they did it the way they did. But i don't support going into any country and shooting people.

Just as you wouldn't support a call for Canadian Mounties to slip across the border and execute some US resident in the middle of the night, then extract him, and bury him in the great lakes.

There is a great reference somewhere in which a US president asks 'but why do the people hate us?' And it is explained to him; 'they are under the impression that we have harmed them by supporting oppression regimes, and they are right, furthermore we are right to support these regime because they guarentee our econmoic position in the world'

Lastly, all this military aid, essentially amount to large-scale corruption. Within the US lobbiest convince the government to spend money on military aid, the money never leaves the US it simply goes to amrs manufacturers who ship weapons to the middle east (among other places). The arms manufacturers pocket US tax payers dollar, a tidy profit; and the people of the middle east get to be shot, and bombed, and threatened with tanks.

The only ones to benefit are oppresive dictators and military contractors.

And yet the US cotizens do what? Complain that more needs to be done for security.

Well i ask you, whose security are you protecting??

+1 my friend. +1

I would absolutely support the Canadian mounties crossing the border and taking out a known and wanted terrorist who had orchestrated the deaths of 1000's of innocent Canadians, if for some reason the U.S. Government were unable and unwilling to do so. As for bin Laden, a trial may have been preferable to execution, but I have no qualms with how it was done.

Latin America was also the subject of intense Cold War intrigues by the U.S./USSR, and we backed some pretty awful regimes. And the region continues to have its problems, and legitimate grievances against the U.S., it's not a hotbed of terrorism.

*but it's not a hotbed of terrorism. You could say the for Vietnam. The U.S. (and France before them) probably fucked Vietnam more than any other country in its history, but you don't see Vietnamese terrorists plotting the downfall of the West. Instead, Vietnam is one of the world's fastest-growing economies. Why? Difference in culture.

"As for bin Laden, a trial may have been preferable to execution, but I have no qualms with how it was done."

So you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.

The thing we might criticise some tyrants and dictators for, you're ok with violating.
Good to know.

" And the region continues to have its problems, and legitimate grievances against the U.S., it's not a hotbed of terrorism."

What is your point? Is it that you did evil things elsewhere and it turned out fine? Cause honestly that doesn't sound like a very good defence.

Like, the way i understand it, you are literally saying, "well when we were assholes in south america, murdering priests and supporting nazis, they didn't resort to violence against us, so what excuse do the Arabs have?"

Seriously? That is your arguement??

And Vietnam? You know who the invaded Vietnam most recently? The Chinese, and as much as the US is not liked in Vietnam, they have thousands of years of hating the chinese under their belt!

Also, Vietname and most South American countries are not currently run by US sponsored dictators.

Need i repeat myself, Saudi Arabia is one of only absolute monarchies left in the world.

No, I don't believe that we are ethically obligated to extend to terrorists the same criminal procedures to terrorists that we give to your average thief, or even your average murderer. And even if I did think Osama bin Laden was "innocent until proven guilty," I don't think it's appropriate to lose much sleep if he dies in a firefight while being captured and "brought to justice," as has been the fate of many lesser felons.

I am not trying to justify every American action. What I am saying is that committing tertiary acts as revenge over things that happened 30+ years ago is not a recipe for success, and is not an attitude that we should go out of our way to accommodate.

*terrorist, not tertiary.

I am indeed aware that China waged an unsuccessful intervention in Vietnam. In 1979 I believe. They were beaten so badly that they have never attempted to use armed force in another country since.

Well ISIS is not commiting terrorist acts for something that happened 30 years ago; they are being supported by the Saudis, who sell the US oil and are therefore a US ally.

Used as a pawn in a game to take Syria away from Iran.

Osama, meanwhile, was anti-US because of American influence in Saudi Arabia, and the continued oppression of his people. He didn't think the tactic of opposing the Saudi government directly was going to work, so he decided to bring pain to the people who support the Saudis.

Violence directed against American interests. Whether that means a car bomb in the world trade center in '93/'98? or attacking the American embassy in Kenya? All for current US actions. Nothing about 30 years ago...

And FYI the US haven't really changed, in their foriegn policy goals or actions. Bombing Syria and Iraq, Bombing Libya, invading Iraq... all within the last 14 years.

@Amwidkle, Ok, let me get this straight, in your mind terrorists are not people; they have lost their human rights.

The end.

"who sell the US oil and are therefore a US ally."

Wellll, the US has traditionally gotten less than 15% of its oil from the Middle East. If you want to *really* look at who has been financing the Sauds, look no farther than Europe and Asia. In 1985, the US accounted for only 6% of Saudi exports. The largest share was in the early 90s, when North America accounted for a third, but that was only after a concerted Saudi effort to sell more crude there.

Moreover, I can't believe that you're defending Osama bin Laden, you absolute twat. He was an enemy combatant at the time he was killed. Had he marched up and surrendered himself to someone, he would have been tried like a criminal as you so wish he was.

As for our recent actions, here were are choices. 1) Bomb Syria and Iraq 2) Let ISIS continue with their plans of genocide and forever be labeled as the country that let a genocide happen on its watch when it could have stopped it.

How about another option. 1) Bomb Libya. 2) Allow Ghaddafi to complete the eradication of pro-democracy groups in Libya and end all chances of democracy and releasing the country from the grips of a single tribe's rule for a decade. Oh, and forever be despised as the democratic power who watched as people pleaded for our help and were killed.

Iraq was a fuckup, but pretty much everyone acknowledges that. Everything else we were fucked no matter what we did.

Ok, apologies Goldfinger, i am simplifying.

"Moreover, I can't believe that you're defending Osama bin Laden, you absolute twat." - Can you read? I'm not defending Bin Laden.

However, he was human, and deserved a trail. If anythign I am defending our civil liberties, the values we stand for. If you actually think US military actions is 'good' for the world, then at least it should be good because it protects values worth protecting.

And if you give up on those values, because somehow 'terrorists' aren't human. Then you're not really about values, you're about domination, about control, and no different from every conqurer who came before you.

There is nothing special about this US regime, except it happens to have automated kiling machines. Unmanned drones that drop death from the skies. Which is a little bit scarier than, oh, say the Mongol hoards.

"Had he marched up and surrendered himself to someone, he would have been tried like a criminal as you so wish he was."

Yeah, just like every criminal marches up and surrenders. That sounds like a person of sound mind alright.

"Iraq was a fuckup, but pretty much everyone acknowledges that. Everything else we were fucked no matter what we did. "

- Yes, but you're saying the you fucked up for a good cause, or that you are an evil empire who intentionally destabilised the region, killed thousands, and stired up sectarian conflict which had been gone for decades?

Are you saying it was an honest mistake that any super power could have made, with good intentions, or was it an evil act in the first place. Which had nothing to do with Osama, was illegal under international law (which the US regularily ignores, while criticising anyone else who does so) and required lies to the public about Weapons of Mass Destruction to get the go ahead.

Yet, that same public has failed to prosecute the individuals who perpetrated it.

What kind of fuck up is it?

Also, Libya and Syria, are different fish kettles. But i'm only going to argue the strongest case against the US right now. If you can accept that not everythign they do is 'good' then maybe we can discuss the subtlties of other actions....

You went out of your way to try and make us sympathize with Bin Laden's worldview. That seems like defending him to me. Is it that you just prefer the people chanting "death to America" but don't actually follow through on their actions?

War criminals should be brought to trial, yes. But usually said war criminals aren't facing their would-be arrestors with an AK-47. Case closed. No civil liberties were violated because when he was killed he was just some regular old enemy combatant. And yes, people do march up and turn themselves in after they do a crime. Not a whole lot of them (usually just the ones who feel remorse), but you do hear about it semi-frequently.

I think its a honest mistake that any super power could have made. The USSR went into Hungary and Afghanistan for lesser reasons. We toppled a mass-murderer who was repressing over half the population of the country he ruled. We were perhaps too idealistic that a democracy could be created successfully in a region with so many long standing grievances - that an insurgency wouldn't immediately start up.

And please, don't pretend like the US is the only country to violate international law and not get away with it. Any invasion of any country is always going to be "Against international law", because international law at this point cannot trump national sovereignty, so please save that strawman for something else.

*and get away with it*

Sorry, been out of this conversation for a while. Have we got to the point where our left leaning forum members have outlined a sustainable and realistic vision of the Middle East that they wish to work towards yet? And have we had suggestions of strategies that will help us to get there?

^^ I guess it's not irony and that he's just straight up being a hypocrite then.

@ wjessop

What are you talking about?

Not to support golfinger or amwidkle views. I certainly don't support US policies in the middle east (nor in many other places, btw). And I have to say that I know little about international right nor about the exact circumstances under which Obama was killed (probably there were technical violations if they didn't have the third party permission of Pakistan), but come on Orothaic, if an army decalres war to yours, your soldiers are usually allowed to kill its soldiers without trial...

Anyway, why no media has talked about the argelian identities of the other attackers? why would only insist in that syrian passport? Here another read, that might deserve discussion:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/france-s-unresolved-algerian-war-sheds-light-on-the-paris-attack-a6736901.html

wellcome back Octavius, I posted a question to you, Iet me post it again:

@octavious, it would be nice if you expand on Assad's brutality. I've heard about certain attack with biological weapons that was attributed to Assad's regime, and later a UN report showed it was actually responsability of the oposition. Not that I know much about the subject, but doubts I do have

*IN my previous post I meant OSama, lol

"I think its a honest mistake that any super power could have made. The USSR went into Hungary and Afghanistan for lesser reasons."

And were these good actions? IS any superpower ok to invade whoever they want? Why then was Iraq wrong to invade Kuwait in August 1990?

Again, jsut because others do it, doesn't mean it is right.

So, i ask you, was it a mistake because it failed, or was it wrong in principle?

And if Osama was so bad for being a terrorist, what about George Washington? He was a terrorist and rebel, right? He started a war without being a state.

The difference is, he won...

Why else was Washington 'right' to attack the United Kingdom?

"And please, don't pretend like the US is the only country to violate international law and get away with it. Any invasion of any country is always going to be "Against international law", because international law at this point cannot trump national sovereignty, so please save that strawman for something else. "

Yes, any invasion the United States has committed, except when it gets the security council permission. That is the system we have setup. So, while it has it's flaws, that is international law.

The Korean war was a policing action, not an invasion. It didn't violate international law.

" Have we got to the point where our left leaning forum members have outlined a sustainable and realistic vision of the Middle East that they wish to work towards yet? And have we had suggestions of strategies that will help us to get there? "

No, so far we've been focusing on criticising our own actions, rather than planning for the future. If we can't agree that bombing cities as wrong, i don't think we'll be able to agree future strategies that don't include that action...

@Octavious: when I was involved in a discussion about definitions of 'the west' you said it was drivel and that discussion should stick to Paris/the OT. Now you too are involving yourself in further discussion rather than just posting about Paris.

I think the discussion here is valid and worthwhile -- but you are a hypocrite.

@ wjessep

Ah, I see your confusion. I have nothing against forum conversations evolving along a broad variety of issues. However I thought your one man attempt to turn into a debate on the definition of West was utterly ridiculous and an obstacle to legitimate discussion.

Does that clear things up for you?

@ principians

I assume you want something other than newspaper articles and statements by politicians? If so Human Rights Watch is probably a good place to start.

It wasn't an attempt to twist the debate -- it was a conversation that evolved like every other; only the opinion I stated simply received multiple questions as well as criticisms.

It's weird that you're being ignorant to that just because you disagreed with my opinion. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't make that person's opinion an irrelevance or a malevolent twist/turn of the conversation.