So OBL was allegedly killed this week (which some people debate). I think this whole "was he/wasn't he" argument is the perfect distraction tool,
keeping the free thinking minds on symantics rather than the crux of this whole situation.
The US goverment is hardly trying to diffuse this argument, infact I would go as far as saying they are encouraging this by purposely not rolling out
"the pics". They know it would be contraversal and that's what they like to do, keep the flames of controversy hot.
Lets all be honest. Wether or not he was killed recently or a long time ago or even if he isn't dead at all, OBL has served his purpose, irregardless
of any of the former arguments.
Lets break it down:
1. He was killed along time ago - why roll the body out now, at this time?
2. He was recently killed - there is no way they have only been monitoring his location for a few months, every intelligence agency the world over has
been looking for him, someone, somewhere would have leaked this along time ago! So why now?
3. He isn't really dead - well he is now (officially anyway) so he's completely off the radar. Again why?
Outcome: He is nothing to worry/think about now. He's all spent, and all usefulness for him has gone. Happy days?
So given the aforementioned controversy, is it really likely that this was done for the votes? I don't think so.
Why? If it was done for the vote, it would have been "showcased" alot more.
How? Well the pictures and video would have been rolled out for sure, but there are many other ways the adminstration would have made it "hollywood"
to get those votes (i'm sure anyone reding this could list a few ways in which they would have done this). I think this whole thing goes way beyond
the whole democrat/republican tit for tat stuff. I have a sneaky suspicion this was a "big play" in an as yet undiscovered master plan.
So the big question then is why now? Why has OBL served his purpose? Has Al Quaida served it's purpose too?
What is coming around the corner shortly?
Once again, we have to be honest. We know in our heart of hearts all this middle east/western asia stuff is about OIL. Wether it be a strategically
placed military zone projecting it's prescense on or around the oil producing countries, or the invasion of the rougue oil countries themselves, it
all boils down to one thing- OIL. The only thing that is different in all the latest wars in the region, is the JUSTIFICATION for action. (And
although I think the US is the major player in all this, I think every western european power is involved too. So I'm not US bashing. Britain might
even be the protagonist in this all.)
So far we've had WMD's, terrorist harbouring regime's, Ex presidents refusing to cede power, mass rioting/revolutions, the mistreatment of civillians,
civil war. I suppose you could even go as far as saying certain agencies making sure a "certain" country's southern half (oil producing) breaks away
from it's northern (oil-less)
brother to form a new country.
So there we have it. All the justifications/strategems for complete control of the middle eastern/north african/western asian oil. All completely
different tactics, on a completely different timescale, to try to make sure the big picture isn't clear. All of these oil producing countries are
"covered" so to speak by the west's millitary projection, wether that be "friendly" countries nearby that allow wetern military bases/installations
(like missle arrays) inside their borders, or attack fleets of naval ships close by.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but the big picture is needed to be seen. Back to the original question: If OBL has ceased to be useful as a
justification in the "oil wars", is the mission now complete? Has the west secured the oil for themselves?
There are still a few big countries out there, who persist in being "rougue" states. These ofcourse will have to be dealt with.
So going by the whole justification process I explained earlier, I will now open the floor for the great minds of ATS, to explain who are the
remaining rogue states, and what justifcation is going to be used to "deal" with them?
edit on 6-5-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason