Originally posted by faye
View Post
Point 1: In my opinion, treat the disease, not the symptom. Mr. Bin Ladin was driven out of Sudan by the US which, in the initial, had interfered in Saudi. He had, to the best of his ability, attempted to leave the Iraq-Saudi issue a purely internal Arab matter. However, the US had goals of establishing bases to protect its corrupt monarchy. This was an intervention predicated on the false specter of an Iraqi invasion after the US iself had green lighted Saddam's Kuwait venture. This of course was after the US had given Saddam the know how and wherewithall to kill thousands of Iranians after they threw out the puppet Pehlavhi. So the germ is Western interventionalism, the vehicle are the Muslim nation's own corrupt wataan foroshee denizens in the upper crusts.
Had the West not intervened in his homeland, where he attempted to attack the Saud regime first, and turned him into a fugitive, he would never have wound up on Afghanistan's front door.
Quiet simple really:
American Interventionalism = Disasterous Results
Point 2: Matching words with deeds: Contrary to the ways of Western politicians and the Afghan elite, the deceased Mr. Bin Ladin appeared to have a higher 1:1 correlation between matching words with deeds. For instance, one might say that Mr. Karzai ought not talk about the deceased being located in Abbottabad (and not Afghanistan proper) when he actually was confirmed to have fought directly in the Russian Afghan war as a combat Engineer (See. Michael Scheuer's interview with Yosri Fouda:
Last Word: Micheal Scheuer, former Head of CIA's Bin Laden Unit 1/5 - YouTube
So Mr. Karzai high tailed it out of there, as the Russian killing machine mowed down Afghans, and did nothing with his bare hands to aid or assist them. Neither did Mr. Wardak, Mr. Arsalaa, Mr. Kakar, Mr. Ghani or the whole lot of them.
It appears, unfortunately for US interests, that the Tribal Afghans did see this stark contrast:
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/a...315358960.html




Comment