The real endgame of these wars of imperialism is to control all the possible energy on the planet.All countries invaded with the exception of Pakistan have been about oil,resources,the sale of arms and drugs.

If you want some real global research see; http://www.globalresearch.ca/

This is a tired analysis content to repeat long discredited versions of history. It confuses consequences with causes. The aims of bin Laden were spelt out by him in several speeches. It was always focused on three things in particular: (1) to remove American troops from what was perceived as the sacred soil of Islam; (2) to destroy the ability of the Zionist state of Israel to continue the oppression of Palestinians and restore to the Palestinians their own land stolen from them in 1948, 1967 and 1973 and the steady encroachments since then; and (3) to destroy corrupt Arab dictatorships (invariably supported by the US) whom bin Laden saw as perversions of Islam.
Recent reputable opinion polls conducted in Arab countries reinforce the disjunction between Arab opinion and the views of their corrupt leaders. The overwhelming majority (70-80%) see the US and Israel as the greatest threats to peace in the region. Similar majorities support Iran and think that if Iran did have a nuclear capability that would be a good thing.
To nobody's surprise these poll results are not covered in the Western press in general and the US and Australia in particular.
Bin Laden became the Emmanuel Goldstein of his generation, used to justify the so-called war on terror which is nothing more nor less than the old imperialist grab for land and resources that has been around for at least 400 years. His usefulness had became doubtful so he had to be "killed". Whether it was really him or not will probably not be known for some time, not least because the Americans ensured that was the case.

Well put Arjay and James O'Neill.

The real war on terror has to start at home with an emphasis on a more egalitarian foreign policy approach and a redistribution of wealth. This can be achieved by reducing undue political and economic interference in the affairs of sovereign nations and better management of domestic affairs.

One US politician once said “If the lion and the lamb have to lay together, you want to make sure you are the lion.”

I reckon the better one is nothing to do with Lions and Lambs, this mindset perpetuates the problems. My preferred analogy is "if you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas".

I am not certain of what to think. However, in amongst my occasional musings on this matter, one possibility within the range of things that I have to date considered is a scenario that I dare not utter.

The recent events in Pakistan, or at least one possible interpretation of them, go to add additional weight to this possibility.

That is to say, that even if we are fortunate enough to have a period of relative harmony post the alleged end of *Osama Bin Laden*

(whose body I would have returned to someone were it my decision to make, irrespective of the fact that we are led to believe that the Saudi government did not want him .. and I hearken to the legend of *Achilles and Hector*)

I hope that a reality of the world entering a far more dangerous time does not come to pass.

Wow, I just love the conspiracy theorists. Amazing, they have
nearly convinced Pelican now!

FWIW, the neo cons did play a role, their theory was that the
West was hooked on oil, that the Arabs were barbarians and that
they could not be relied on to deliver regular supplies, so
converting the ME to democracies was a good idea.

It is pointless to take over oil wells, if you can buy all that
oil by simply printing US $. So far, the US has spent a trillion
$ on wars, for no oil. Hardly makes sense, even to a conspiracist.

If bin Laden got anything right, he predicted that he could bankrupt
the USA. He was not far off the mark. He felt that Islam could go
back to its prime position, as it was centuries earlier, if the
Arabs forced the West to pay far more for oil. That is why he tried
to overthrow the House of Saud.

Those hugely embarrassed right now, are the Pakistani Govt. No doubt
they will be screaming from the rooftops, if those people left in the
house, in their custody, are in fact not the 3 bin Laden wives and
children, the twelve year old having witnessed her father being
shot and his body dragged into the helicopter.

So far they have done no such thing.

so if the 'new normal' is targeted assassinations, torture, war by remote drones etc, without regard to any ethical justifications whatsoever, then the terrorists have won, by bringing the rest of the west down to their barbaric level.

there is no 'closure' to this so-called 'war' then, it will just go on and on, only it's the civilian populations that will suffer the most, with the troops becoming the 'innocent bystanders'.

what 'a brave new world' this will be, that had such people in it.

Yabby
Foreign policies do have an impact on the growth of terrorism and on poverty, economic wellbeing of people worldwide. Foreign policy is nearly always originate from economic interests and in the current global world centre heavily around free trade and economic pressure. Read some of the Wikileaks cables written by US Embassy staff and draw your own conclusions. Just keep an open mind.

Nobody said anything about conspiracy theories. Valid conclusions can be drawn by the actions of governments or any organisation. I think it is pretty certain now that there were no WMDs in Iraq nor did the US government really believe this to be the case. What were the real motives? These questions need to be asked.

Transparency is always preferable in governments that purport to represent the people and who are engaged by the citizenry.

The reason the USA/ is demonising Pakistan via Osama's so called death,is that Saudi Arabia is seeking a defence pact with Pakistan.The oil rich Muslim world have had enough of Western Imperialists with their naked aggression and political interference.It is the western banking system via the IMF and World Bank that keeps these countries in perpetual debt and poverty,while the few have more money than they could spend in a thousand life times.

Yabby the world is fast awakening to the next world war both the USA and its corporate masters are pushing us towards.Do you want the mushroom treatment Yabby with the mushroom cloud?

“The key movements shaping the Arab world are movements for democracy. These, rather than security services, will bring the end of jihadism”

As we all, in all parts of the planet are constantly and unsuccessfully trying to get into democracy, jihadism will have a long life.

*I think it is pretty certain now that there were no WMDs in Iraq nor did the US government really believe this to be the case. What were the real motives?*

So Pelican, stretch your memory back. After the UN imposed no flight
zones over the Kurds, as Saddam had gassed them. UN inspectors
were constantly thwarted when trying to inspect Iraq for nuclear
materials. They were hamstrung at every turn, as Saddam decided to
bluff that he might have the bomb. He figured that if he could
convince the West that he did, nobody would dare attack him.

Nobody really knew if he did or he was bluffing. He certainly went
through a whole lot of effort to pretend that he did.

He gambled and lost.

If you really want to know what bin Laden's brand of Islam believes,
check out what the Salafists believe. Read a copy of "Milestones",
by Sayid Qutb. Qutb's brother educated bin Laden in Saudi Arabia,
after Qutb was killed in Egypt.

The global Caliphate is very much the aim.

Yabby: you have the gall to call others "conspiracy theorists". Global caliphate!!
If you must insist on rewriting history do some research beforehand so that your arguments are at least halfway plausible. You might like to start with Hans Blix' book on his experience with Iraq, rather than relying on the neocon's justification on why they had to attack Iraq: we thought he had nuclear weapons!! Give me a break.

*If you must insist on rewriting history do some research beforehand*

Ah, there you go James, that is what I actually did. Now go and
do your homework and learn what Sayid Qutb actually believed,
wrote about and in the end preached and why his version of Islam,
along with a few other scholars, is what has driven the extreme
militant agenda.

No photographs, tv, videos, no girls schools etc, did not happen
in Afghanistan by accident. Omar follows the same school as
bin Laden, that is why they got on. And yes, a global Caliphate
is their version of the world as it should be.

Religious nuts they may be, be we all pay a price for that.

Yabby what about George Bush's "New World Order" caliphate? Which despot would you choose?

Arjay, I remind you that when Bush took over, Clinton had the
place in reasonable shape, with a budget surplus. 8 years later,
Bush had nearly totally crashed the economy and nearly bankrupted
the country.

The man had trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
But he did have a clever strategist to convince the masses to
vote for him twice. Such is democracy, its not perfect, people
pay the price, when they get it wrong, as they did with Bush.

Today Bush tends his roses. Rather then any global conspiracy,
more like Bush-the man who ruined America

*Osama bin Laden*

Does that mean *Osama* the son of *Laden?*

Yabby,
the masses didn't elect Bush in 2000 and 2004. In the first election the Supreme Court intervened in an unprecedented way and stopped the recount for Florida where there had unquesitonably been elctoral fraud. In 2004 it was done by fraudulent voting machines. It has all be documented in Mark Crispin Miller's book.
As for the global conspiracy, in my view it doesn't matter who the presidential candidate is. The candidate is chosen by the money men and the people's role is merely to ratify their choice by marking the ballots for one or the other. The election of Obama provides no clearer example of how meaningless the choice really is. His policies are distinguishable from Bush's: they are in many cases worse. See Tariq Ali's latest book The Obama Syndrome.

*In 2004 it was done by fraudulent voting machines.*

James, if the evidence is so clear, given that the Democrats
are loaded with lawyers, no doubt they could have shown it to be so.
It never happened.

Fact is Karl Rove was an expert at pushing the emotional buttons
of the religious right, some of the trailer trash and others.
Just enough to get Bush over the line. America has paid a huge
price for that.

As to Obama, I've seen plenty of interviews with Tariq Ali and I have
yet to see where he understands economics. No, he's not going to
adopt Ali's politics, why should he?

Given that getting anything done in the Congress is a bit like herding
cats, Obama has done an outstanding job with the resources available
to him. He's a realist, you work with what you have. He also realises
that America has to innovate its way out of the hole that Bush dragged
it down into.

He's winding down Iraq, so not a problem there. Handing Afghanistan
back to the Taliban is not a sensible option, so Obama is trying
the Petreus option, he did pretty well in Iraq, whilst Afghanistan
was being ignored.

Meantime Obama is thinning out Al Qaeda and the Taliban leaders with
drones and now the daring shooting of bin Laden, plus a huge
treasure trove of data and computers which will set them back for
years. He's doing pretty well really

Yabby you are believing the lie.The USA and Britian have found no Alqaeda in Afghanistan.According to Benazir Bhutto and many others Bin Laden died in 2001 probably of renal failure.He was a very sick man.

You seem ot believe the fiasco of his latest demise.No body,false photos released and then retracted,no DNA,caught alive,assassinated and promply buried at sea.For the USA to have the high moral ground they should not have killed Bin laden.he should have stood trial.Nota Bene.The FBI have never wanted Bin Laden for the crimes of 911 since they still do not have the evidence.

James O'Neill,the truth movement will not give up.This is a do or die exercise.

Arjay, I understand that you are trying to retain face here, but
you really arn't very good at telling fibs, especially when you
contradict yourself in the very same post.

*For the USA to have the high moral ground they should not have killed Bin laden.*

Err, I thought the man died in 2001, according to you? Your
cover up here is a bit bleedingly obvious, I am afraid.

Arjay, I've shot a sheep with a .223 I can only assume that the
Americans use much larger bullets. I can tell you, these are not
pop guns, its an awfull mess. Apparently the brains were emerging
from the eye socket, not ideal for public viewing.

But of course no matter what the Americans released, convinced
conspiracy theorists would never be convinced, they can't help
themselves, its gotta be how those brains are wired. I'd love
to see a brain scan of some of you blokes :)

But right now we have Al Qaeda websites confirming they got Bin Laden.
We have the Taliban confirming they got bin Laden.
We have the wives and young children confirming that they got bin Laden.
We have the older sons complaining that they got Bin Laden and that
he should have been put on trial.
We have the Americans claiming that they got bin Laden.
We have the Pakistanis, losing face in the process, admitting that
they got bin Laden.

Perhaps Bhutto's 2001 speculation without evidence, was simply wrong.

I'm sure I saw Bin Laden working at a service station with Elvis the other day .

Yabby,for the US to have the high moral ground they should not have killed the alleged Bin Laden.We know why they did this cover up.It probably wasn't him.

*It probably wasn't him.*

Ah Arjay, in that case the Pakistani Govt will be able to announce
with great pride, that the Americans got it wrong. For of course
the Americans have been proven correct. Either there was a cover up
going on, with Pakistan playing a two faced game, or they are simply
useless.

The bin Laden children, the bin Laden wives, the bin Laden sons,
the Taliban and Al Qaeda might well know why they got it wrong and
who was really shot instead.

Either that or you have some severe egg on your face.

Yabby,
Here’s another believer in Osama’s death –The Pakistan chapter of the Taliban:

“Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, told The Associated Press in a phone call that its fighters conducted the attack on the Frontier Constabulary in Shabqadar in retaliation for bin Laden's death.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/13/pakistan-bomb-attack-revenge-for-osama-bin-laden-death-taliban-claim-115875-23127357/

Now, all I’m waiting for is the usual suspects to come forward with the claim that “The US stirred things up, if they’d just left things alone, it would have settled down and there would have been peace and prosperity in the region” (or some variation on that!).

I think we should stop talking/worrying about Osama .We should be more concerned about the (potentially) thousands of Osama wannabes living a-- law-abiding life-- in an Abbottabad near by --just waiting.

I think Yabbie is closest to the mark so far. I'd like to add that Kevin is right when he describes the changing nature of warfare over the last 100 years. (Warfare is always changing, socially and technologicaly.) What I think Kevin misses is that wafare is policy carried out by directly violent, rather than by other, means.
Having read a lot about Muslim-inspired terrorism over the last few years, it's clear that Muslim terrorists had many, interlocking goals, all tied up around their perception of Islam's current political weakness and religious (that is, social, rather than economic) corruption.They all thought that a strict enterpretation of Islam was a cure to society's ills, and that the more widespread the application of such an Islam, the better. So many, but not all, had nationalist goals: all had, as at least a distant goal, the dominance of the world by Islam.
But Islam is politically weak, and Islamic terrorist groups even moreso. So if they want to engage in direct violence, they must do so differently. And killing military personel is not important to the goals - in Islamic countries the military was to be won over; elsewhere it was to be neutralised. The civilian population was always the direct target, so as to force political change. This is contribution that terrorism has made to the change in warfare.
The sought-after change was political: the adoption of a strict Islam; and in both the 'corrupt' west and in 'corrupt' Muslim countries, they hoped that a terrorised populace would demand adoption of a strict Islam to end the violence.
Because Islam claims a global reach, and because its chief enemy, the US, is itself global, Islam's version of terrorism became global. But that only made the change more visible. But for anyone with eyes to see, it's been clear for a long time in the violence perpetrated by and on behlaf of the palestinians against Israel (who did not need to join an international group to fulfill the demands of jihad, and have become very suspicious of others tying to control their fate).

Awesome series of posts Yabby. I disagree with you only on one thing. I don't think Bush's reason for invading Iraq was oil. He just thought being a war president was a good way to win the next election. It's cynical I know, but I can't find a single redeeming feature in the bastard.