The BBC are reporting that Osama Bin Laden has been killed in a US special forces raid on a compound in Abbottabad, 60 miles north-east of Islamabad.
After a “firefight” Bin Laden was killed and his body taken by US forces, the president said.
Mr Obama said “no Americans were harmed”.
US officials said Bin Laden was shot in the head after resisting.
US media reports said that the body was buried at sea to conform with Islamic practice of a burial within 24 hours and to prevent any grave becoming a shrine.
Giving more details of the raid, one senior US official said a small US team had conducted the attack in about 40 minutes.
Three other men were killed in the raid – one of Bin Laden’s sons and two couriers – the official said, adding that one woman was also killed when she was used as “a shield” and two other women were injured.
One helicopter was lost due to “technical failure”. The team destroyed it and left in its other aircraft.
This author has not written a biography and will not be writing one.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oracle
“Better let the wife know she has some serious competition.. tell me can you cook.. iron shirts.. wash dishes. clean showers.. hoover.. clean windows properly..dust.. polish.. feed the children.. collect them from school.. do the shopping and flirt with the milkman??”
God made housework easy … so that women could do it!!!!
Its the school of misquotes, half quotes and romantic but bloody fiction. History does not happen in a vacuum. If you continually fail to give the reasons why and to make clear that the behaviour on all sides was the norm for the period then you might as well be making it all up because it is not the full truth.
The IRA spent decades sobbing to their American friends about the use of torture, conveniently forgetting their own interrogation methods. Its all gone quiet since it became clear that the Americans use torture too. Of course they don’t call it torture, they have a lovely expression ‘enhanced interrogation’, almost makes it sound clean…
The big debate among some Americans at the moment is about whether torture was used to discover Bin Ladens whereabouts. If it was then in some minds the torture was justified.
oracle,
“Jesus at least try and answer a question instead of trying to bluff your way with bare-faced untruths which are nothing short of depressing but predictable zionist propaganda.”
Please don’t let solid historical fact disturb your prejudice. I was simply trying to point out that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is long and deep rooted; there is no air of saintliness around either side – both share the blame for the situation and each is or was as bad as the other. It’s depressingly similar to Norn Iren – two communities, who hate, blame and distrust each otherf, orced to attempt to share the same land .
Lert us be honest – neither wants a solution. The Palestinians tout their grievances around the world and the Israelis are quite content for them to do that knowing that every day the Palestinians refuse to accept the status quo post bellum and move on is another day close to the last Palestinian leaving, especially, the West Bank. That’s not ethnic cleansing – that’s communal suicide! Without a peaceful solution the best and brightest Palestinians will emigrate leaving a rump that will be progressively compressed into a smaller and smaller area as Israel slowly expends into vacated (by voluntary or persuasive means) areas. We had that re-alignment of population post Internment in the seventies when, for example, the Lower Ormeau area in Belfast went from a predominantly Protestant area to being a predominantly Catholic area.
Palestinian violence, to redress perceived grievances, is as complete a no-brainer as the “armed struggle” of PIRA and the Dissidents. Not one of them has or had a chance of achieving their stated aims throught the application of violence. The only way the Palestinians can hope to etnically cleanse Palestine so that it becomes a fit place for them to live (i.e. Jew-free) is by borrowing all the heavy divisions in the US Army which alone has a chance of militarily defeating the IDF. Now quite how do they impress Obama enough that he will lend them those divisions?
They tried war when they refused the attempt by the UN to devise a solution in 1948 – and let us bear in mind that prior to that, indeed a cause for UN intervention was the existent communal tension and violence. Having failed in war the Israelis took over the lands the Palestinians left by right of conquest and adverse possession – the very argument advanced to legitimise Palestinian occupation of lands that had been ethnically cleansed of Jews by the Roman Empire. And let’s not stop there but go back even further to prove just who has legitimate right of habitation. That’s the same mindset that the Loyalists/Republicans have and had here – and it goes nowhere.
I suggest you read up a bit about the Sudetenand East Prussian Germans together with the ethnic cleansing that the Arab states did on their Jews in the aftermath of the 1948 and 1967 Wars before dismissing it as Zionist propaganda. Denial of evidence simply diminishes your argument and simply reinforces my view that, in reality, the only thing the Palestinians want is to be a perennial pain in the butt and get everybody else in the world to sort out their problems because they can’t or won’t do it.
I’m really not that concerned about Palestine because I see them as eternal losers who prefer to wallow in their own self inflicted misery. In 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait and even the Arab world turned on him, Arafat hadn’t the brains to climb on the anti-Saddam bandwagon (like the Israelis so cannily did) and gain some kudos for his people. He backed the guy who went down in the “mother of all battles” that lasted all of 100 hours. How different might the Palestinian cause have been if he had made a different choice?
The Palestinians have to accept that they cannot destroy Israel; they’re not going back to the old lands; intransigence and violence will gain nothing for them and they have got to win friends and influence people if they are not going to become an extinct people. They are going to have to compromise … just like the Republicans have had to accept that unification of this island is not going to happen anytime soon and Loyalists have had to accept that Unionist political hegemony is gone for good.
“Ben Laden knew time was on his side.”
What are you talking about? How was time on his side? His organization is in shambles, though still dangerous, and his stated goals are as far away as ever.
As for the US, they didn’t seem to support their uber friendly allies Mubarek and Ben Ali? Same with Gaddafi, in fact they went out of their way to save the rebels.
Those facts don’t fit in with your smug analysis.
Tell us again, MV, how the Provos won the war?? hahaha
‘Sources involved in the operation that took down Usama bin Laden told Fox News the terrorist leader acted “scared” and “completely confused” in his final moments, “shoving his wife” at the Navy SEAL who ultimately shot him.
The information helps clarify the conflicting details about what exactly happened toward the end of the 40-minute raid on bin Laden’s northern Pakistan compound. Sources who were part of the mission said bin Laden acted in a “cowardly manner” when confronted. Fox News has also learned that while bin Laden was unarmed, he was standing near the door within reach of two weapons — an AK-47 and a Makarov handgun that are now in U.S. custody. The handgun is a 9mm semi-automatic Russian pistol, standard issue in the Russian military until 1991.
A senior U.S. official stated that only one of the five people killed in the raid was carrying a weapon and firing. The detail seemed at first to diverge from White House accounts claiming the Navy SEALs encountered resistance throughout the raid and were engaged in a firefight during much of the 40-minute operation. However, the scene was described as chaotic, with U.S. forces encountering barricades and women in the compound screaming and attacking the men.
Another U.S. official said there were “at least a half-dozen weapons” found at the compound. The first person the SEALs encountered at the guest house “immediately opened fire” before being killed, the official said. As the SEALs moved through the compound, bin Laden’s son Khaled rushed down from the third floor to the second floor and confronted the SEALs, who killed him.
The U.S. team, in their training, had anticipated that bin Laden had a suicide vest and that the house was rigged. The official bristled at the notion that the compound was somehow an easy target with reports that only one person was armed.’
The Jews ethnically cleansed and their property expropriated by Muslim countries after the Israeli War of Independence
Many arab jews moved to Israel willingly. And refuse the label of refugee. Such as Yemeni jews for instance. Some where expelled, but their position was also undermined by the actions of underground zionist militias in some arab states. So to lay the blame for that solely at the surrounding arab nations is a gross distortion.
The Palestinians refused to accept the UN mandated partition of Palestine – they and their allies went to war and lost and have never stopped complaining since.
The arabs were perfectly entitled both legally and morally to refuse UN res 181 as they did. it held only recommendation status and had no enforcement power whatsoever. And remember also that the Zionists were on record as seeing partition as a first stepping stone to a greater Israel
after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine(David Ben-Gurion)
The Germans, like the Palestinians, denied the right to existence of their neighbours and threatened to exterminate them just like the Arabs have at various times
To equate the palestinians with the Germans during ww2 (by inference the nazis) is ridiculous. Zionists were immigrating with the express aim of establishing an ethno-religous state which would threaten the rights of the indigenous arabs.
Did not the Grand Mufti seek German help to eliminate the Jews of Palestine?
Yeah. And funny how one man is routinely dredged up to try and justify the crimes Zionism has inflicted upon Palestinians. Aside from ignoring his anti-semitism was, in part, encouraged by the well declared desire by Zionists of usurping him and his people in his own land. The revisionist attempt by zionists to lessen their crime against the Palestinians by blowing up the alleged role the Mufti had in the holocaust can be seen from the ridiculous fact that in the official Holocaust Encyclopedia he has the largest entry. beating Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, et al. With his entry being bested only by Hitler himself. And if the Mufti was such a central player in the holocaust, why did Israel not do an Eichmann on him, and bring him for trial? Why did Israel let him die peacefully next door in Lebanon?
And did not the assembled Arab armies that invaded the nascent state of Israel (established under UN mandate) promise to drive the Jews (many of whom were not European) into the sea and failed?
Indeed there was quite alarming rhetoric from some arab notables. But the arab armies did not invade. They came at the request of Arab Higher committee which represented the Palestinians, whose welfare was under threat by the Zionist unilateral declaration of statehood. The fact that jordan perhaps coveted the West Bank for itself, does not alter either that Zionists shouldn’t have unilaterally declared statehood, which amounted to declaration of war on the indigenous (and at that time…majority) population, nor does it alter the right of the Palestinians to seek help from the surrounding Arab nations.
both share the blame for the situation and each is or was as bad as the other.
Please explain how the victim is as much to blame as the aggressor in this conflict?
Without a peaceful solution the best and brightest Palestinians will emigrate leaving a rump that will be progressively compressed into a smaller and smaller area as Israel slowly expends into vacated (by voluntary or persuasive means) areas.
Please highlight this possible ‘peaceful’ solution? israel routinely locks up those who choose peaceful methods to address wrongs. And what do you mean by ‘persuasive’ means?
Nunof : “…I can’t be alone in expressing genuine surprise, if not shock, that that’s the sort of company you keep…..”
Like Turgon’s apparently that I was the owner of a yacht ?
The up-date take of ‘the pig in the parlor’ regard of some Unionists towards their Catholic / Nationalist neighbors is still a cause for bemusement although I should know better at this stage of my life !
This week alone I have exchanger em addresses with four academics of Unionist background that I met at this weeks conferences and I will also be exchanging information with them helpful to their work as their expertise will be to mine.
No problem either in sharing lunch with them and to-day, given the day that was in it, discussing what this election may mean for Northern and all Island politics.
Some years back I also found my self in a situation where as the only Irish person in an all English special interest touring party on the Continent, I had to explain and defend what were referred to as ‘ those bloody obstinate Unionists’, in historical and contemporary terms.
Who says that the Gods do not have a sense of humor!
Munsterview
No I was more referring to how unlettered your contributions generally are.
As for “No problem either in sharing lunch with them”, well…….
Nunof : “…No I was more referring to how unlettered your contributions generally are…..”
Oh That ?
When I began contributing to slugger I was advised that I should keep most postings rather basic, unsophisticated, devoid of subtlety and above all repetitive if I wanted to eventually register and communicate with a certain type of Unionist !
The very fact that I can have an exchange with one of this minority such as your good self, would seem to indicate that while I have dropped my usual literary standards sufficiently to achieve this, it would also seem that I have been able to do so without unduly irritating or annoying the average reader to the extent that they have seen fit to raise any complaint about the style of my contributions.
However now that you have raised the subject may I also avail of this opportunity to thank majority of the general readership, posters and bloggers for their patience and understanding on this delicate matter.
Munsterview
I’m not a unionist of any type which suggests that you may want to consider relaxing the rigidity of your adherence to this devoidance of subtlety principle.
Nunof : “….I’m not a unionist of any type which suggests that……”
Many, many moons ago when a good prod friend up there was finished explaining the various strands of overt Unionism to me, she finished with….
” And then there are the closet variety and those in denial……!”
Nuff said!
Nuff said by you, certainly.
Apparently so….any more on my part would be ‘gilding the lily’ Better luck next time !
Again with the trademark off-the-scale narcissism ?!
…better luck what incidentally ?
Nunof… : Tada!
munster
If you want to spend your time trawling through ancient history for mope/whinge material………….you knock yourself out.
In this particular thread,about the snuffing out of a self confessed mass murderer,you have invoked every possible whinge/mope,you can lay your hands on !!
A simple,” well done USA”,would have sufficed,instead of ” I feel the pain of the oppressed……….but what of 17th Century perceived grievances………..our man Osama was naked………..Huffington Post says it was wrong……….( and my personal favourite ) it’s all the Unionists fault…….again”
As I have already pointed out,I do feel your pain fella,I really do !! Apparently the Yanks found a book on Osama’s bedside table……………..” Never Ending Mopery Through The Ages by A.William Hinge. 😉
Please,I beg you,do not invoke the name of Paddy McGinty and his downtrodden goat………….I just wouldn’t be able to bear it !!
AGlass….
I find this constant reference to ‘mopery’ and the poverty of expression concerning the articulation of such objections by some Unionists bemusing.
Some weeks backs I factually delineated here how our Presidents brother a deaf, mute in his early teens had his throat cut by Loyalists and how he was left for dead only to crawl two streets to his parents door and survive. I also posed the question to some on the Unionist side : just how should such crimes be narrated in a way that is not taken as offensive to Unionist sensibilities ?
One especially articulate and polemic contributer here with a nice line in metaphors and other such literally devices, with, he would have us believe, an unqualified condemnations of ‘violence’ led the charge of ‘mopery’ for bringing up reference to this violent event
Actions speak louder than words : the fact that this person in particular see fit to use his intellectual capacity to shoot the messenger with charges of ‘mopery’ rather than condemning without reservation the events of the message was not lost on all bar his Greek Chorus and those of like ilk.
More ways than one way to skin a cat ! ( and avoid a red card or two in the process)
As all so often in some Unionist circles, it is not apparently the ‘violence’ per se that is the problem, just who was doing the inflicting and who was at the receiving end.
The messenger is important to the credibility of the message. When you have someone who violates human rights on a barbaric level such as Osama deliver your message, you shouldn’t be surprised if the listener dismisses its complaint about human rights out of hand. After all, it contains the logic of a lunatic.
Alias : given your unqualified support for all Israeli activity, I will give you a couple of hours to clean up all the glass that must have shattered around you before engaging on that one!
I have patiently waited for Naom Chomsky to have his say on this assasination and as usual, he took his time to have his say but he has said it well !
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
May 6, 2011
 “……. We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic…..”
Noam Chomsky
Abstract
In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany.
What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have.
Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.
( Citizens of the world concerned with the International Rule of Law, read on….. MV)
As much as I admire Mr.Chomsky, I have to shake my head at the above quote. I guess it escaped my notice that Bin Laden put forward an election platform telling us of his intentions and subsequently got elected President of where ever (ignoring the pregnant chads for now).
There should be a version of Godwin’s law to state that the first person to cite Noam Chomsky or an ‘essay’ by Osama bin Laden in criticism of the US automatically loses the argument.
Munsterview if you thought that article was worth the wait then I can only imagine that you’re a big watcher of Michel Moore films and probably an admirer of George Galloway. I find it very difficult to accept that any academically inclined individual, which is what you’d have us believe you are, would find that piece in any way insightful. It’s just another predictable, tiresome anti-USA whine of the type that regrettably Professor Chomsky appears increasingly unable to vary from these days. These are the same people who’ve been mocking the US government’s incompetence regarding their pre-recent inability to locate Bin Laden and who regularly equivocate talong the lines of ‘anyway, we MADE him a monster !’. Some of the less cowardly among their broader numbers have at least the frankess to come out and say that they thought 911 was come-uppence…those that actually do believe it happened at all, that is.
Incidentally regarding Chomsky’s reference to the tomahawk; my understanding is that the tomahawk actually is or was a weapon – or at least a tool that could be used as a murder weapon – to begin with rather than the name of a victim of ‘our crimes’. Only Chomsky can explain who he is referring to in using the first person plural to describe crimes committed on native Americans and only he can explain why he feels it appropriate to do so. I think we could probably both guess though.
NunOf… Yes, I follow Michael Moor and I have all his books in my library…… which US Republican ‘Tea Party’ cousins offered to take out and burn when over on holiday two years back.
I am that sort of guy, I tend to look for views contrary to prevailing political opinion of….” there goes the mob, I must follow and join in the bray” sort of thing. Like here when the Celtic Tiger was rampant, I avidly read all Paul McWilliams, Fintian O’Toole and other such voices wrote.
The recent book by the Independent International former long serving UN Nuclear Inspector is a damming inditement of Blair, Bush & Co., Naomh is in good company.
There are plenty of dissenting voices out there but just like any decent, humane Isralie questioning their State’s genocidial and lunatic political policies towards the Palistnian and other neighbours are labled ‘self hating Jews’, so also Naomh Chomsky, Moor and other such sane dissenting Western voices are simlarly labled by people like you.
Down to personal choices, I will take people like Chomsky and Moor any day, those such as your good self take Blair and Bush as gospel ….. or whatever such people are dominating the current airwaves as the current ‘movers and shapers’ with their latest populist ‘stroke’ to capture headlines while the world around them continue to go to hell in a handbag ! You are welcome to them!
“There should be a version of Godwin’s law to state that the first person to cite Noam Chomsky or an ‘essay’ by Osama bin Laden in criticism of the US automatically loses the argument.”
Could we have that also apply whenever we come across a piece by Alias that is uncritically defensive of U.S. foreign policy?
Rory Carr
And nice, specially padded cells for the loony left who support terrorists no matter what the bastards have done and are continuing to do.
Obama got into power promising to deliver the terrorists to the rule of law, but in order to do his job he discovered he could not be as liberal as he wanted, and to keep his job he has to do what any American president would do.
Talk is easy but there are realities to be faced and one of them is the vast majority of Americans uncompromising hatred of Bin Laden and his followers.
Munsterview
I am sure that Professor Chomsky will be gratified that you’ve bracketed him alongside your fellow academic heavyweight Michael Moore. That’s quite an accolade. Of the three of you, Chomsky is at least a man of some considerable education and intellect. The other two share a similar level of intellectual capability, I’d probably concede that much based on what I have read of either of them.
As for dissenting Israelis, I’d have my doubts as to whether you’d recognize one if he dropped his or her lunch in your lap when it was piping hot.
“I tend to look for views contrary to prevailing political opinion of….” there goes the mob, I must follow and join in the bray” sort of thing”.
– You do ? That’s not at all obvious from both your contributions to this site and is fairly strongly contradicted by your still-fresh admission that you esteem the work of Michael Moore. What else is the bulk of the faux ‘Left’ these days than a (usually quite conservative) mob ? Its position on the middle east in a lot of cases is not even conservative, it’s actually reactionary. Incidentally if you consider Mr O’Toole anything other than fairly wetold fashioned liberal – having read his work, as I’ve done – then that would explain a lot.
“those such as your good self take Blair and Bush as gospel”
– This is further evidence that you are no academic or are unlikely ever to become one. When did I say I’d supported either of them ? And you have the cahones to refer to me labelling anyone ?! Also, surely anyone of any education and intellectual discernment would regard taking something as ‘gospel’ as a sure sign that it was wholly untruthful and almost enirely fictitious in any case ?
See Hitchen’s response to Chomsky’s piece:
http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/
Yet of PROPER interest, see comments on Hitchen’s piece by Theodore Reed:
‘’The truth is that Chomsky was bin Laden’s most fearsome and determined foe because he understood the distinction between empty bluster and effective counter-terror measures, between playing to the gallery of the Nuke-Iran-Crowd and really, truly undercutting the Jihadist enterprise. Had Chomsky’s political counsel been followed after the assault on the World Trade Center, bin Laden’s capture would have been secured before the year was out by the extradition route to which the Taliban had been amenable as reported by the New York Times and Washington Post (consult the link below).
The republic would have been spared the futility of waging the longest and pointless war in its history which, surge after impotent surge, has drawn the greatest empire into an embarrassing military stalemate with a band of rifle-toting Afghan peasants, many tens of thousands of unoffending civilians would not have been sent leaping into the arms of God uninvited, and the land of the free would have its civil liberties untruncated. ‘’
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/15/world/nation-challenged-president-president-rejects-offer-taliban-for-negotiations.html
Then he continues….
‘’Hitchens, like the good commissars of his Bolshevik heroes, can’t bear to see the Dear Leader held to account for expanding the Bush policy of incinerating thousands of civilians in drone attacks. The God complex here is on the part of those who demand worship of the state. Chomsky will not worship and neither should anyone.’’
Pip : “…. Obama got into power promising to deliver the terrorists to the rule of law, but in order to do his job he discovered he could not be as liberal as he wanted, and to keep his job he has to do what any American president would do……. ”
Obama promised to take the high moral ground and to take a principled stand on critical issues where there can be no compromise, such as the US sanctioned use of torture either in their own jails or farmed out to third parties in despotic, anti-democratic regimes.
On the torture issue he has, by failure to act and ban it’s use outright, by either US or US proxies forces, de facto sanctioned the continuing use of torture and yes the buck stops with him, his responsibility and his alone in this regard.
Obama has resorted to the same expedience as Bush and in this regard he is no different in his moral stand to the Bush and the people around him. He is guilty of crimes against humanity and rank hypocrisy.
Torture against captive prisoners is as wrong now as it was when practices by the British against the Nationalist Internees, which is why the Irish Government brought the British Government before the International courts and had them convicted of practicing inhuman and degrading treatment.
Just because almost 100% of the Unionist population fully supported the use of torture and worse against Nationalist prisoners and likewise their internment without trial, did not make either practice morally or politically correct in Northern Ireland. In fact anytime in history that the mob is braying for blood, the mob once the heat of the moment have passed, have been seen and in hindsight shown to have been acting in a shameful manner.
Given what we now know about the raid on Ben Laden’s compound and more important what the US knew before going in there, they could have brought him out alive and put him on trial. They could have had the rule of law and set down principles for dealing with such things for the 21th, century just as The Nuremberg trials did post WW2 for Western civilization for the remainder of the 20th, century.
Just as the Nuremberg trials were used to reinforce Christian and Civilized values and show the savage tyranny at the heart of fascism, so also Ben Laden’s trial could have been used to put Islamic Fundamentalism both as a religious philosophy and by extension arising political ideology on trial for the world to see what they were.
Of course the US could only have done that if they had clean hands!
Such a trial would have clearly also shown the part the US and the CIA played in building up Ben Laden into an Internationally significant political player prepared to use terrorist practices in pursuit of political objectives.
Since the US and its institutions were totally compromised in it’s dealings with Ben Laden’s earlier terrorist and ‘freedom fighting’ activities, it could not do this. Unlike Nuremberg there was no clear blue water between the bad guys and the good guys on this one.
Imagine a retired Russian General testifying to Islamic terrorist practices that the CIA trained Ben Laden forces used against his forces in that Afghanistan war and then a senior US military man or security expert testifying as to how these CIA acquired terrorist skills were now being used against US, British and NATO forces in the current Afghanistan war?
Because the US was compromised there was only one way the Ben Laden issue was ever going to be resolved if the US ever caught up with him. Instead of having a Nuremberg situation and International values of Civilized law re stated for the 21st, century, we had ‘vengeance be jazus’ and Western Frontier Lynch Law of the 19th, century.
The America that I have affection for, care about and respect is better than that !
Munsterview
Again, an awful lot of words for not an awful lot more ultimately I fear than a borderline ‘O’ level standard rant and a partial conspiracy theory. Much like Michael Moore’s career in that respect.
If you have any affection for the US at all – whatever you happen to mean by that anyway – then it’s admirably well concealed. You may well be a moveon.org subscriber but in fairness that’s too rank an accusation to make without hard evidence so I’ll not allege that. Not yet, anyway.
MV
Obama got in because people wanted Bush out and as much distance between him and the next president as possible, nothing unusual there its how most elections are won. The people didn’t read the small print and when they were confronted with the reality of Obamas liberalism they didn’t like it, to the extent that without the death of Bin Laden Obama would have been in serious danger of becoming a one term (failed) president. Bin Ladens death has given momentum to Obamas campaign.
The Nuremburg trials like the trial of Eichmann were not impartial trials they were triumphalist exhibitions, and after the horrors of the second world war there was nothing wrong with that: the people needed them, which is the same as America now. The people need to know that Bin Laden is dead and there will be no daily diet of fanatical propaganda to insult or embarrass them issuing from their own courts!
As much as I dislike and disagree with it torture is as old as humanity, chances are when we fell out of the tree some bastards were holding clubs. I’m not interested in how nasty the Brits were to the IRA all that does is force me to remember the IRAs own interrogation techniques and how nasty they were to everyone especially to the Irish.
Pip : States and especially states who would claim to be the embodiment of democratic principle and civilized values have an obligation to act within the rule of law at all times for the simple, obvious and ethical reason that it is the right thing to do.
This is not dependent on how any section of it’s own citizens are behaving, indeed the true test of a democratic society, it’s respect for laws, institutions and ‘civilized values’ can be gauged by how such a State systems react when under pressure.
Time and again in this country as with the murder of Veronica Guerin we have seen the wave of public hysteria during which all sorts of laws that would not normally be passed are rammed through as ‘vitally necessary in the fight against crime’ by sinister state forces yet time and again we have found these new laws and restrictions used not against criminals but against ‘shell to the sea’ and similar legitimate street protest demonstrations….. which was the intent of these state forces harnessing the wave of public hysteria, all along.
nunof…. a bit long in the political tooth to be baited, annoyed or deflected. However please feel free to try even under another alias!
Pip”to the extent that without the death of Bin Laden Obama would have been in serious danger of becoming a one term (failed) president. ”
Quite the contrary, he was easily the heavy favorite even before this death. Who the hell is going to beat him from the other side?
As for Bin Laden, I think many on here are quick to speculate on how easy it would have been to take him alive. These seals had no idea if he held a remote that would blow the whole compound, they had no idea what they were going in to. There was an Ak-47 within reach of Bin Laden (propped on the desk).
The deaths of their comrades would have been on their conscious if they tried too much to take him alive and he managed to detonate some explosives or the like.
Furthermore, his trial would have accomplished nothing. He was at war with the US (and many other countries) so he died as a combatant would have. He was no mere criminal. There are plenty of other high profile Islamic militants who’s views are aired all the time.
Regarding the CIA: Their building up of Bin Laden is one of the most commonly brought up things among America hating leftists, anti-Westerners, and conspiracy theorists. It is entirely exaggerated and largely incorrect.
In fact, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA had NO dealings with “Afghan Arabs” such as bin Laden and had few direct dealings with any of the Afghan mujaheddin. Instead, all U.S. aid to Afghanistan was funneled through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI. Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, the ISI officer who coordinated Pakistani efforts during the war, explained in “The Bear Trap,” his 1992 book: “No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujaheddin.”
Since 9/11, al-Qaeda insiders have responded in writing to assertions that they had some kind of relationship with the CIA. Bin Laden’s top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in his autobiographical “Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet,” wrote, “The truth that everyone should learn is that the United States did not give one penny in aid to the [Arab] mujaheddin.” Similarly, Abu Musab al-Suri, long an associate of bin Laden’s, explained in his history of the jihadist movement, “The Call to Global Islamic Resistance”: “It is a big lie that the Afghan Arabs were formed with the backing of the CIA.”
I suggest that MV and others actually read the myriad of well researched books (including those by Soviet historians) out there on the Afgan-Soviet War and the history of western internvention in such. Although what you find that would conflict with your oft repeated claims “Bin Laden was created by the CIA”
‘States and especially states who would claim to be the embodiment of democratic principle and civilized values have an obligation to act within the rule of law at all times for the simple, obvious and ethical reason that it is the right thing to do.’
Democratic principles, civilized values, ethics? This coming from a Provo cheerleader. Does bombing a Remembrance Day Parade fall within these values and principles? Does carrying on a hopeless war with hundreds of atrocities, against the express wishes of those you claim to be fighting for, fall within these values and principles?
Brian : Do yourself a favor, go to a video rentals and take out a copy of ‘Charlie’s War’ for a night!
I might remind you that Charlie’s War played to widespread acclaim all over the States and US secret services basking in the reflected glory did not rush to print to deny their involvement nor are there too many government dep. heads or politicians, if any who rushed to print to say
” this is horse feathers and BS, it did not happen like this at all”!
Perhaps they did and I missed it at the time, you may be good enough to give me a few examples of US public figures directly commenting on and dismissing the film ?
“….. “It is a big lie that the Afghan Arabs were formed with the backing of the CIA.” Ah come on Brian, in the infamous words of Christine Keeler regarding politicians denying that they ever had sex with her ” they would say that wouldn’t they”
The US directly handed over surface to air missiles, trained ‘freedom fighters’ in their use and then when the war was over CIA operatives were again directly involved in retrieving these systems.
Brian like most Irish families I have direct relatives or relatives through marriage through out all levels of US society, some proud to don a uniform and serve their country and some also in other branches of the services including the FBI and the CIA.
“… “The truth that everyone should learn is that the United States did not give one penny in aid to the [Arab] mujaheddin.” I am not surprised that Ayman should say that, what I am surprised is that you should repeated here.
However I may have you all wrong, you could have a great sense humor and you may have been convulsed with laughter as you wrote that!
Brian
No, Obama was not popular. He had his core, although the extreme left were less than happy but where were they going to go. He had lost the all important independent voters and that could have cost him the presidency. If he had not been wary of the independents KSM would be on trial in New York and Guantanamo would be closed by now.
Brian : consider this alternative scenario……
1) American forces seal off the compound from the outside while keeping as safe a distance as they could .
2) Pakistani forces are then called in.
3) The US hand over the perimeter and withdraw making it Pakistan’s problem.
4) The US demand Ben Laden’s arrest and extradition.
5) Ben Laden is then extradited to and tried in the US or another venue as with the Balklands War Criminals.
What is wrong with that scenario…. well aside from an immediate uprising and civil war in Pakistan that is !
Now we come to the other BS factors : the US is pouring money into Pakistan to keep an regime that internationally is a by-word for corruption ‘onside’ yet these same people interested in their own geo politics and on the same wavelength with the fanatics and fundamentalists are playing in both teams.
Aside from a monumental waste of financial resources needed for education and hospital services etc in the States, you also have the ridiculous and immoral situation where the CIA and Paki intel are ‘working together’ and yet these same Paki Intel forces are also working against the US and giving financial aid to Insurgents who are fighting against US forces.
Patriotic young US soldiers have died from resources provided by their own relatives tax dollars Stateside converted into insurgent war material and mercenary payment.
In the festering corrupt mess that is the Pakistan Nuclear power ruling regime all the CIA chickens have come home to roost. Ben Laden may have been a powerful symbol to most US citizens but he was the least of the threats in that region to US, International or Global security.
“…there are realities to be faced and one of them is the vast majority of Americans uncompromising hatred of Bin Laden and his followers.” says Pippakin in a justification for the continuance of US torture whether direct or by proxy, extraordinary rendition of whomever happens to be scooped up by well rewarded thugs in client states, continuing incarceration of innocents in Guantanamo, the slaughter of countless civilians by aerial bombardment, the injection of compliant rogues into puppet regimes favourable to US corporations within those areas under US military control.
And all of this is perfectly reasonable, says Pippakin, because of ” the vast majority of Americans uncompromising hatred of Bin Laden and his followers.” Which begs the question: What action then is it reasonable to take for those who might have formed an “uncompromising hatred ” of the US for its acts of perfidy? Such reasoning justifies 9/11 retrospectively by proxy, although I am sure that was not what Pippakin intended. We should be careful where our righteousness lead us.
We can know that the US believed in its heart that the assassination of Bin Laden was morally unjustifiable. How? Because if it had believed that it was justifiable all that was required was that they announce his killing and leave it at that. But instead they fell into the old trap of attempting to justify what they knew to be unjustifiable by further demonising the victim of their killing.
“He was found living in a luxurious milllionaire’s compound.” Lie! The dwelling was more akin to a hovel than a luxury dwelling.
“He was killed following a furious firefight.” Lie! There was little, if indeed any, armed resistance.
“He used his wife as a shield and obliged US forces to shoot her accordingly.” Lie! This lie was revised because the poor woman survived to tell the tale.
“He acted in a cowardly manner when faced with imminent murder.” Well, I don’t know about this one. I would have to rely upon the word of proven liars to accept it and then would have to factor in a certain lack of objectivity. Then again I have to ask who among us would be so gung-ho, Arnie/Sly/Brucie/Steven, all-out brave and stoic when faced with heavily armed men bursting into our bedrooms?
And (and perhaps best of all) we have Obama’s proud assertion that this assassination of a poorly guarded sick man in his bed by 24 heavily armed special forces using four hellicopters (one of which they lost) was “one of the greatest intelligence and military operations in our nation’s history.” Really? What price then Valley Forge? New Orleans? The Alamo? Gettysburg? Beaulieu Wood? Guadalcanal? Normandy Beaches ? I could go on but why add to the misery of emabarrassment?
Where was the need for all this lying, all this total bollocks? The need arose because they knew the action was immoral, was plain wrong – Hillary Clinton’s eyes as she covers her mouth in horror while watching the killing speak volumes – and they needed to justify their action by further demonisation of their target. It was justifed by “heavily armed resistance”; by Bin Laden’s “luxurious living conditions”; by his “using a woman as a shield”; by his “acting in a cowardly manner” when faced with imminent death. All of it nonsense and none of it, in any case, any real justification for murder.
Of course they could show me and indeed the world that they were right by showing us the video-tape of the action. If Hillary can stomach it then maybe so can I. Indeed maybe even so can Pippakin who would like us all to live in the real world where real men and, presumably, real women make hard decisions to kill those they feel like killing in order to assuage the “uncompromising hatred” of their electorate.
Brian : “…Democratic principles, civilized values, ethics? This coming from a Provo cheerleader…”
I made the point here in this thread as I have continually made that…..
“States and especially states who would claim to be the embodiment of democratic principle and civilized values have an obligation to act within the rule of law at all times for the simple, obvious and ethical reason that it is the right thing to do.”
Whether I am a Provo or a member of the Militant League of Atheists do not change the import of what I posted.
If you have a legitimate objection to the philosophical concepts or practical application of theoretical principles, then please canvass them and it may add something of value to these exchanges in terms of understanding and appreciations.
On the other hand if the best you can do is ignore the message and concentrate on the messenger, then that at best is bias or antagonism towards the poster concerned or at worst it indicates avoidance of the core issue involved or an inability to argue the specifics of the case on it’s own merits.
If a States moral code and practices are superior to an Insurgent organization then their application should not be conditional or dependent on the attitude of the Insurgents, rather they should exist in spite of insurgency attitudes and actions.
Rory Carr
I was not attempting to justify it, I do not and have not justified torture or extraordinary rendition. I have said that I understand the reasons for the Americans to execute Bin Laden. I have said that having ‘got their man’ they now have no reason to stay in those countries they invaded to ‘find’ him..
I’m not going to shed crocodile tears for the death of a mass murderer and I’m not going to pretend that treating him in the same way he treated his victims is somehow worse than anything he did. Why deny Americans their ‘victory’? there was no doubt about his guilt Bin Laden had accepted responsibility for atrocities
If he had gone to trial, apart from any ‘revelations’ he may have made and he would have made them true or not, he would also have taken every advantage of the court system whilst simultaneously refusing to recognise its jurisdiction or its findings.
Since when did it become unacceptable for an accused to take every advantage possible within the legal system at his trial? Is that not what his legal representative, who is in the first instance an officer of the court, obliged by law to do to the very best of his ability?
Are you then in favour of sparing the legal system (or the US one in any case) from the burden of going to trial against those it arbitrarily decides it would prefer to assassinate?
Do you not appreciate that any state which acts in this fashion has no moral authority whatever when it comes to condemning the actions of those groups which act in a similar arbitrary fashion?
Pip. : You are around long enough to have seen enough documentaries on the Nuremberg Trials, to be au fait with the process ?
Were the Allies concerned about what the Nazi War Criminals thought of the court structure or proceedings?
Some of the leading Nazis such as Goring had good intellectual capacities and it was anticipated that when it came to arguing about the merits of the Allied Courts legitimacy, they were expected to cause some embarrassment.
They did just that, Goring in particular made a circus of the early stages but justice was done and seen to be done!
The second issue re the US going into Afghanistan just to find the Bold Ben and your observation “…. so that having ‘got their man’ they now have no reason to stay in those countries….”
No comment on that one Pip, innocence of every kind including political innocence is such a rare and precious commodity in this harsh world that when encountered, it should not be interfered with. Pax sister!
(“….. “It is a big lie that the Afghan Arabs were formed with the backing of the CIA.” Ah come on Brian, in the infamous words of Christine Keeler regarding politicians denying that they ever had sex with her ” they would say that wouldn’t they” )
I actually don’t know what they say about it. They would certainly all lie to make themselves look better, there is no doubt about that. Just like Gerry, Marty, and whomever else. I was going off of what authors like Peter Bergen said as well as Pakistani accounts of what happened.
I haven’t seen the movie But as WIlson himself said, “How are you going to defeat the Red Army without a gun? You can’t blame the Marines for teaching Lee Harvey Oswald how to shoot.”
The fact that they offered and gave them some support hardly takes away from what some of these militants went on to do…which is purposely murder 10,000s of civilians (mostly in Muslim countries).
Pipp-RE Obama and his re-election. Even though his party got pasted last November the Republicans aren’t exactly getting high ratings anyway. I can’t think of any candidate that could beat him and still can’t. Clinton cruised to re-election in 96 after a similar mid-term disaster.
As for Mr Carr, I think he would find fault with the US no matter what happened. But I’ll tackle the easiest claim as time is short.
““He used his wife as a shield and obliged US forces to shoot her accordingly.” Lie! This lie was revised because the poor woman survived to tell the tale.
I dont’ know if this was a deliberate lie or not. One of the women was used as a shield, just not the one in the room with him. In that room, one of Bin Laden’s wives rushed the Seals and they shot her in the shin. First of all, when the Seals fire their weapon, they know exactly where it is going. (especially when they were not under fire in that room). So this ‘poor women’ survived because they purposefully made sure not to kill her .
Rory, btw, did your hero Stalin give all of his tens of millions of victims trials?
Finally, there is this:
Starbucks announced their new “coffee of the week”:
The “Bin-Latte”
– a dark bodied, frothy head, with two shots in it.
For exactness, It was Mandy Rice-Davies who said the words, not her colleague Christine Keeler.
Rory Carr
Obama had two choices he could leave Bin Laden mouldering where he was or he could kill him, bringing him back alive was not a realistic option, leaving him there would have made him Obamas failure. Obama could not risk that.
usually the public at large only ever see the aftermath of a terrorist attack. I was one of millions who watched people leap to their death rather than wait for whatever horror Bin Laden had dropped on them. I won’t forget that and I won’t pretend to care how Bin Laden died.
MV
I said Nuremburg was an exhibition which part of that did you not understand? There was never the slightest doubt that those senior members accused of war crimes would be found guilty, no matter how clever they were.
As to Afghanistan etc I said they could now come home I did not say they would, they probably won’t but their excuse for being there has gone and from now on the anti war movement in the US will get stronger.
Please don’t refer to me as politically ‘innocent’ if anything I’m politically cynical. For sarcasm to work it has to be good and bear some connection to reality.
Pip : “… For sarcasm to work it has to be good and bear some connection to reality…..”
O’K, conceded, you are correct, got me on that one I am afraid, no connection whatsoever between you and political reality!
MV
Political reality? If by that you mean I won’t defend murderers because they say they believe in the same things I do: You’re right. I don’t accept their version of reality or history for that matter.
C’mon boys and girls. No degeneration into petty insults (MV, you started this).
I suggest that MV and others actually read the myriad of well researched books (including those by Soviet historians) out there on the Afgan-Soviet War and the history of western internvention in such.
Indeed, or just cut and paste from Peter Bergen without even mentioning his name.
http://www.peterbergen.com/services/print.aspx?id=479
In fact, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA had NO dealings with “Afghan Arabs” such as bin Laden and had few direct dealings with any of the Afghan mujaheddin.
The CIA had very little dealings with anyone. It funneled the money to Pakistan and let the ISI distribute it as they saw fit. Who knows where the hell it ended up. In 1987 the CIA informed a congressional committee that at least 20% of the aid to the mujaheedin was being pocketed by pakistani officials and rebels. Some put the figure even higher. It became a joke, as investigative reporter Tim Weiner has written –
“The CIA pipeline leaked. It leaked badly. It spilled huge quantities of weapons all over one of the world’s most anarchic areas. First the Pakistani armed forces took what they wanted from the weapons shipments. Then corrupt Afghan guerrilla leaders stole and sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of anti-aircraft guns, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47 automatic rifles, ammunition and mines from the CIA’s arsenal. Some of the weapons fell into the hands of criminal gangs, heroin kingpins and the most radical faction of the Iranian military…. While their troops eked out hard lives in Afghanistan’s mountains and deserts, the guerrillas’ political leaders maintained fine villas in Peshawar and fleets of vehicles at their command. The CIA kept silent as the Afghan politicos converted the Agency’s weapons into cash.”
Bear in mind also that one of the largest recipients of US aid was notorious nutjob Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Which kinds of destroys the argument some people here are trying to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar
A former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Robert Neumann has said:
‘Hekmatyar is a nut an extremist and a very violent man. he was built up by the Pakistanis. Unfortunately our govt went along with the Pakistanis. We were supplying the money and the weapons and they were making the policy.’
Another character who is of interest is Ali Mohamed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed
I think it’s beyond to naive to accept the word of intelligence officials in whose interest it is to absolve their respective agencies of any hand or part in the genesis of one of their enemies, one which the populations in their respective countries have been attacked by, and are also taxed in order to help pay for the fight against this Frankensteins monster. As regards Ayman al-Zawahiri book. You seriously expect him to know where the money the ISI was lavishing on his comrades came from, and even further, if he did, to admit that the ‘Great Satan’ was responsible for the freeing of part of the ‘Caliphate’?
C’mon….
Also of interest is the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) which the CIA used to funnel money to the rebels. Guess who also dealt through this institution? Thats right. The US was aware of the nature of BCCI in the early 80’s but instead of seeking it’s dissolution, (which would have nixed many terrorists ability to fund their agendas) it decided to jump on board and use it to push their own nefarious agendas.
I mentioned Frankenstein earlier. Which I think is not the best analogy. That infers intent to create such a monster. Which i very much doubt was US plan (their intent was to make the Soviets bleed their own ‘Vietnam’). A better one might be AQ are like an ‘evil penicillin’. Created by mistake and laziness. But again the US cannot be held solely responsible either, as mentioned above, other countries helped to develop the fungi.
The sons of bin Laden have condemned the US action as a sin, going on to say that “the sons accused President Obama of ordering “a criminal mission” that “obliterated an entire defenseless family … contrary to the most basic human sentiment.”
I guess they do not understand irony.
joe
Oh I think they do…. This is the usual terrorist complaint: demand the rights and privileges they deny their victims.
Munsterview,
“Brian : Do yourself a favor, go to a video rentals and take out a copy of ‘Charlie’s War’ for a night!”
I have noted your stating elsewhere that you are a trined and qualified historian. If that is the case then you really ought to know that one’s views of history ought not to be based on a Holywood film. I much enjoyed “Charlie Wilson’s War”. I have no doubt that many basked in any glory attributed to them by that film – after all why wouldn’t they? But, in my view, as a mere amateur historian, not a great deal of reliance can be placed on facts asserted as such in a film designed to entertain rather than to inform. If we believed Holywood then we must accept that the US Navy conquered the Enigma code (which it didn’t and never claimed to). I would also discourage your (or anybody else’s) reliance on Pearl Harbor as an accurate documentation of the events of 7 December 1941. That film is absolutely riddled with historical inaccuracies.
As a qualified historian you are of course entitled to disagree with me – I must confess that I tend towards well-documented research and objectivity in historical research and though it is an amateurish practice, it is one that has served me well.
253
the number of comments on this post.
there is an interest in world( and middle east in particular) happenings for sluggers users, please post more. Syria?
Among the realities to be faced = Americkans: a culture that cannot face the enemy, even in capture.
They could not stand to face ObL in the flesh, answering questions, advancing his world view in an open court.
Why could he not be faced?
Because ultimately, they have lost confidence in their project.
wee buns,
I think that yours is a nonsensical view. The Americans have not lost confidence. On the contrary, perhaps they have had too much confidence since they replied successfully to the Japanese sneak attack.
Crubeen : In general I agree with your observations regarding reality and the Hollywood version of events be it of a war or whatever. I also accept your point on Pearl Harbor re the film version and what really occurred.
You seem to overlook a few pertinent things in your post however, these popular culture cinematic presentations whether a romp such as in Charlie Wilson’s War or a more sweeping epic such as Pearl Harbor and Gone With The Wind, are seldom claimed as accurate historical portrayals. To use a very apt New Labour term, they are sexed up where to be entertaining certain boxes must be ticked off. Where a choice has to be made for example between the inclusion of a dry historical fact or a torrid kiss, the fact sequence will remain in the cutting room floor most of the time. That is the nature of the beast.
This cannot be said of all popular film culture as a whole, some film makers have gone to extraordinary lengths to portray their subject matter accurately and avoid distortion.
In this instance I cited the film to Brian, not as an accurate historical record but rather since it played to sell out houses and got favorable reviews in the popular press, I did so to prove that popular culture was also aware of what was happening in Afghanistan. Few US republican party elected representatives and party leaders were in any doubt as to the levels of support overt support whatever of the extent of the covert support.
If popular culture was aware, then I find it very difficult to credit that an apparently aware, informed poster such as Brian could be unaware, and accordingly the debate between Brians views and mine should not be centered on ‘did these things happen’ per se but rather how did American involvement with these forces sow the wind for the whirlwind that they were to later reap.
If my view is accepted, then it becomes a matter of determining what degree of culpability America has for Ben Laden and 9/11. If Brians position is correct, then that degree is very minor and is not of major significance. To use an appropriate metaphor, I believe that Brian well knew what he was doing when he attempted to draw the battle lines on this one !
Americka’s idea of itself has lost confidence, overall. To take him alive would have involved him in massive tangle of US lawlessness. But worse still…to NOT face him (even in death, no image) ObL is inflated to many times his size. Had they been capable of mustering the political will to take him to trial, to raise him up in an expression of humanity…then that would have defined them. Instead they chose to be defined by the enemy, employing terrorist tactics. It’s a bad trap because their own identity is more strongly defined by the way their enemy regards them, than the way they regard themselves.
Most Americans do not believe that terrorists should be given civilian, criminal trials. Attorney General Holder tried to move Khalid Sheik Mohammeds trial from court martial in Guantanamo to criminal court in New York. He had to back down and return the case to Guantanamo.
The reason Americans didn’t want Bin Laden to stand trial in America was not because they had lost confidence, it was because they thought it was too good for him.
To add to my prior remarks, if nothing else, Osama was a poor student of history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iIss3SUMbE
Should have also watched more US television, specifically, The West Wing, season 3, episode 20, We Killed Yamamoto:
FITZWALLACE
We measure the success of a mission by two things: Was it successful and how few civilians did we hurt. They measure success by how many. Pregnant women are delivering bombs. You’re talking to me about international laws? The laws of nature don’t even apply here. I’ve been a soldier for 38 years. And I found an enemy I can kill. He can’t cancel Shareef’s trip, Leo. You’ve got to tell him he can’t cancel it.
Almost forgot:
“The reason Americans didn’t want Bin Laden to stand trial in America was not because they had lost confidence, it was because they thought it was too good for him.”
No. Because Stones’ friends in the PLO, when they took over the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, well, they demanded the release of Sirhan Sirhan, he who was tried and convicting of killing Robert Kennedy. We simply don’t desire another dead Cleo Noel, Jr., George Moore, and Guy Eid. And it wasn’t simply Sirhan Sirhan whose release they demanded, since in addition to some other souls, the PLO’s Black September crew demanded the release of certain members of the Baader-Meinhof gang as well. As you can imagine, not possible for the US govt to protect every American against kidnap overseas and so this result. Why give them any reason to take US citizens hostage and demand the release of Osama? Call Osama’s death the downside of taking hostages and demanding the release of some.
“Among the realities to be faced = Americkans: a culture that cannot face the enemy, even in capture.
They could not stand to face ObL in the flesh, answering questions, advancing his world view in an open court.
Why could he not be faced?”
It wasn’t the Americans who were hiding in a fortified compound in Pakistan, afraid to face the enemy. That was the deceased scumbag who brainwashed his demented minions with promises of virgins to carry out the attacks that he was too cowardly to do himself. Still, I’m sure he enjoyed his last few years, since he seems to have spent it applying hair dye to his beard and watching himself on CNN. Easy enough life for a ‘heroic’ martyr…
Shooting him like a mongrel dog was a fitting fate for him. Sadly, however, the need to appease Islam saw said scumbag receive a funeral that he did not merit.
SMcGO
I disagree, the military may have thought of the PLO but the vast majority of the people I know over there and even watching channels like CNN etc simply thought a civilian trial was too good for Bin Laden.
“If by that you mean I won’t defend murderers because they say they believe in the same things I do: You’re right.” says Pippakin indignantly after having spent hours on this thread avidly defending the murder of a helpless man as he lay in bed.
Ah, but that is an exeception ! But of course it is, Pippakin. Everything you say that contradicts everything that you said before is always an exception with you, isn’t it.
And this defence of mob rule from a woman who insists that the rule of law must be paramount:
“Most Americans do not believe that terrorists should be given civilian, criminal trials.“.
So that’s all right then.
Most Americans also happen to believe in Creationism and wouldn’t recognise a decent cheese if it jumped up a bit them on their lardy fat asses – but what the hell has that got to do with it?.
Have to say, the american press releases in their constantly contradicting drip feed will have created a conspiracy industry that will last for decades to come.
What a sodding mess they made of that.
I totally see the moral argument against killing OBL but the idea of a trial etc. is a non starter in practical terms.
Just about to contradict myself here though. Was AQ wanting rid of OBL anyway?
Alias : “….That was the deceased scumbag who brainwashed his demented minions with promises of virgins to carry out the attacks that he was too cowardly to do himself…… ”
Alias, If Ben Laden was able to promise his male followers who became ‘martyrs’ in what they see as the Islamic Holy War, ‘ Forty Virgins when they entered Paradise’ it was because this is an embedded belief of Islamic culture going back long centuries.
Crazy ideas like that have been part of Mid-Eastern culture for a long, long time however irrational such concepts may seem to Western minds.
To give another example, another culture out there believe that they are God’s chosen people and therefore believers literally see the world as those who are the ‘chosen people’ and those who are not chosen and who de facto accordingly are ‘God’s rejects’ that they are free to threat as they like.
To these religious fanatics, ‘rejects’ do not even have animal status, animals have a value, these threat all men, women and children who are not of their belief and who get in their individual or collective way as encumbrances to be removed from what they see as their own ‘path of progress’
Appalling I know, but I assure you that it is true. In fact the attitude is so appalling that one needs to go to the Warsaw Ghetto and how the victims were treated there by their Nazi oppressors to find any thing comparable in modern World culture.
Now here is the thing Alias, while I can understand deluded people going around with the same attitudes towards women and people not of God’s ’special selected’ in their own country and inside a supporting culture, we actually have others of that country living in modern Western representative Democracies that actually vehemently uphold the right of these sectarian long bearded religious fanatics ( these may not go in for hair dye but they also have their own little vanities, they are big into artificial curls I believe) to do as they will to their helpless, dispossessed, unfortunate neighbors !
I would be a little more understanding of their culture than you apparently are of Ben Laden’s religious ethos and I would not use terms like ’scumbag’ and ‘ Mongrel dogs’ to describe them. However if I did these supposedly ‘enlightened people’ living in Western Culture that I referred to, would be immediately raise a hue and cry of ’sectarianism’ and demand Mick ban me from slugger for daring to use such terminology.
Bizarre I know, but alas, all too true !
Rory Carr
Your dislike of me is obvious but I’m the wrong target it should be Bin Laden and all those like him you vent your spleen on not me. I have defended the US because I’m a bit shocked at the level of anti Americanism on this thread. I felt they had to be defended.
People are very pleased when a mad dangerous rabid dog is tracked down and put down with a shot to the head. I fully believe that Bin Laden was a human equivalent.
@MUNSTERVIEW
You also could mention that the other culture you mention is taking land of people at force based on the ownership of said land which is predicated on an ancient text.
They’re not even keen on christians…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRClRoKGRdU
Pip : There are very few anti-Americans as such on this site. The last window I had open in my computer was to view an photo album that had just been send to me by cousins, an Irish American US Republican ‘Tea Party’ family.
The following is part of the email…..
“….What do you all think about Bin Laden’s death? Have mixed feelings here. Don’t think it appropriate to take someone out who is not protesting capture and is unarmed but that is my opinion. You hear all sorts of things about it here. It appears that we are already starting the 2012 presidential campaign too. So far there is no one worth voting for. Hope the field opens up with some good candidates soon. Although I have to admit I don’t know why anyone would want the job!…..”
This Pip from an all American, succesfull, Republican family who have children in uniform serving their country. They are also practicing Catholics and good Christans with high moral values. Their reservations and unease about the assisnation is something that all right thinking people share.
Few, very few Americans will regret that Ben Laden is no longer around, but many like the family I referred to, do have grave reservations about the way it was done !
Obviously there were many considerations here that had to be reconcilled once the US had located Ben Laden’s whereabouts. The most important was not incidently, his capture or killing, it was getting hands on the expected treasure trove of Intellegence doccuments that could have been in Ben Laden’s compound. Getting hands on these doccuments and getting them out of there was probably the primary consideration of that millitary mission.
Getting hands on these doccuments also meant getting hands on Ben Laden and State interests dictated that from a political expediency view point, his excution and the disposal of his remains in a way that did not present him as a martyer or hero was also necessary.
The dis-infommation and mis-information regarding Ben Laden’s execution was a ‘psyco-op’ aimed at creating confusion and spawning conspiricy theories to keep the facts sorrounding his death nebelous and prevent a coherent, unified narrative emerging. No doubt such a narrative will eventually emerge from Ben Laden’s immediate family and Pakastani Intellegence, but by then the Net will have hundreds of thousands of ‘Ben Laden’ killing entries where such a narrative however true or factual, will be just lost in the noise.
From a strictly operational point of view all the indications are that the US had it’s act together on this one, it was a well planned operation, well executed in implementation, and aside from the destroyed chopper abandoned, the withdrawl was clean. The necessity for the execution of Ben Laden was probably decided long before the mission got a green light for reasons I have outlined elsewhere in this thread.
As a millitary mission per se, it was a very succesfull and almost text book operation and from a political standpoint one that have already paid and will continue to pay dividens right through to the next election. It probably ensured Obamas unchallanged selection for president on the democratic ticket and also it will be a significant factor in Obamas probable re-election.
Political and millitary considerations aside, once the operation is considered from a moral standpoint, this expediedent assisnation of a person that could probably have been captured and extricated will cause unease and quams for all right thinking people the world over. There is a reason why a US polieceman confronting a known killer is obliged and only allowed to use reasonable force.
There is also very good reasons as to why such a confronting polieceman who decides to take advantage of the arrest situation and arbitarly kill a known killer, will themselves face arrest, arrainment and trial for murder! Only society through it’s observed proceedures and established norms have the right to carry out an execution once all these proceedures have been implemented and exhausted.
I have continually made the point here in slugger that Democratic States have an obligation to act in a certain way and the true test of a democracy is how it acts under pressure to ensure that the norms and processes of democracy are followed however tedious and protracted these may appear to be during the process. Ultimately such adherence to these proceedures reinforce, vindicate and consodilate the democratic process.
All millitary missions have certain ‘trade offs’, in this one apparently the price for the capture of the expected treasure trove of intellegence doccuments was also the capture and disposal of Ben Laden in a summary, exectuive ordered, execution of a captive.
Open democratic regiemes are not suppose to act like that, decent concerned Americans and their International friends have every reason to be uneasy and concerned about the circumstances sorrounding Ben Laden’s execution.
( To avoid digression I again re-iterate that as a Republican I am totally opposed to Ben Laden’s organization, to their methods as I also am to their political and religious idealogies)
From now on whenever a terrorist group anywhere in the world sumarly murder a US citizen in their captavity, they can point to Ben Ladens execution when captured and in US custody as a justification of their action. That was a hostage to fortune that the US should not and need not have given. History may yet record that it was also too high a price to pay for whatever Ben Laden’s intellegence trove may have held !
All this talk of political assassinations of spiritual leaders reminds me of the brutal execution of the blind quadriplegic founder of Hamas , Sheikh Ahmed Yassin . An Apache helicopter gunship fired a missile at him as he was being wheeled away from morning prayers . The country in question shrugged it’s shoulders at the world’s outrage .
Pippakin,
I do not know you to like or dislike,. On that matter I assure you I am completely agnostic. Nor do I consider you to be a target, so please desist from this paranoic pretence. However if you must insist on making arguments that demand refutation then you should expect that they will be challenged.
This is a forum for the exchange and testing of thought, it is not a popularity contest; nor do I imagine that the instigator of this topic, Pete Baker, for one moment aspires to be a blogging equivalent of Simon Cowell.
If you intend to use the web to curry popularity then I suggest you try Facebook, I believe that one can attract virtual (or bogus) ‘friends’ on that facility.
MV
Spare me! This belated attack of ‘I love America and apple pie, and by the way I’m related to half of New York is nothing more than your usual patter.
Should I mention my cousin the Judge, who just happens to be a republican, and live in New York? Am I telling the truth? Yes, but what difference does it make to this thread, Bin Ladens death, or our different opinions. Americans are no more at risk today than they were before Bin Laden died. The risk was always there and to be fair to the Americans they would think it was worth it.
MV,
I take offence at your implication, a number of times in your latest post, that people such as myself are somehow morally inferior to yourself and are not right thinking. And,one e-mail from a relative is hardly evidence of the thinking of the US majority.
Rory Carr
Get over yourself. If I worried about popularity I wouldn’t be here. I repeat I have no problem with the method the Americans chose to execute Bin Laden. He got what he deserved.
I’ll ignore the rest of your little rant, stooping that low would do my back in.
Rory : “…. that the instigator of this topic, Pete Baker,…..”
Twas Turgon actually old chap !
Do you not know by now that everything to do with ‘terrorism’ is eagerly siezed in certain quarters and developed as such a thread article and ensuing posts may present a ‘kick the provos’ oppertunity ?
My apologies to Pete and Turgon both then. I am quite sure that Turgon also has no wish to act as a internet Simon Cowell in order to facilitate Pippakin’s need to be liked.
Joe :
Jeezes but it is great to see some consistency in Northern politics after all these long years and sea changes!
The Orange Order still demanding to march where ever they like irrespective of the consequences and old Peoples Democracy grouches still touchy about anybody indicating that they do not still occupy the highest moral ground !
A blast from the past when at early 70’s meetings they were always annoyed at Republicans about something and when there were not enough Chiefs to go around, they always managed to have an indian or two there to get annoyed for them.
As to
“…And,one e-mail from a relative is hardly evidence of the thinking of the US majority….”
yes it is not, it is just that, one em from a segment of the American political spectrum that is positive about the US, patriotic and generally supports it’s actions. They could not be described as anti-American by any stretch of the imagination.
Since the raid on Ben Ladens compound I have met well over a dozen Americans here who are politically literate, most are Right politically and Republican. No regrets for Ben Ladens death and in fact delighted that he was gone.
Since most also are of an academic background they are not, granted. representative of US citizens as a whole. All whether Democratic, Republican or of no fixed political views, never the less shared my concerns about the execution / assassination / killing ‘while resisting arrest’ / killing in custody etc.
I am not the only one expressing these concerns nor do I believe that these concerns that I expressed will prove to be unfounded.
“To give another example, another culture out there believe that they are God’s chosen people and therefore believers literally see the world as those who are the ‘chosen people’ and those who are not chosen and who de facto accordingly are ‘God’s rejects’ that they are free to threat as they like.
To these religious fanatics, ‘rejects’ do not even have animal status, animals have a value, these threat all men, women and children who are not of their belief and who get in their individual or collective way as encumbrances to be removed from what they see as their own ‘path of progress’”
You are straddling the line of a patent Jew-hating there, MV. Since someone else mentioned “ancient text”, would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with:
Exodus 12:49: “There shall be one law for the native and for the alien who sojourns among you.”
Leviticus 24:22: “You shall have one law for the alien and for the native; for I am YHWH your God.”
Numbers 15:15-16: “For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the sojourner be before YHWH. One law and one ordinance shall be for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.”
Numbers 15:29-30: “You shall have one law for him who does anything unwittingly, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles YHWH, and that person shall be cut off from among his people.”
You might also read Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews:
“the world without the Jews would have been a radically different place…. To them we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person; of the individual conscience and so of personal redemption; of the collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as a foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic moral furniture of the human mind. Without the Jews, it might have been a much emptier place.”
You might lastly consider 2,000 years of a patent Jew-hating. You mentioned the Warsaw Ghetto. Fitting indeed, since we get the word ghetto from those humans who relegated the Jews to a certain place and part in society there on the fringe. And now those coming up with the word have the temerity to complain that some of the marginalized might look with suspicion upon them. You’d think that given Irish history you’d get the point. You might say, in terms that Irish you can understand, that what with very nearly 2,000 of a patent Jew-hating, some look to the others with the same suspicion that some Irish have when looking at the English.
Rory : “….I am quite sure that Turgon also has no wish to act as a internet Simon Cowell….”
Maybe, maybe !
However now that you have made the association and given that recent car newsletter article plus photo of rugged ‘Simon like’ good looks and the TUV in a political cul de sac, it could be that somebody has aspirations in media outlets other than Slugger ?
MV,
I don’t understand your 3rd paragraph. What meetings in the early 70s and who are they?
Slappy : For whatever it is worth a significant part of my personal library is of Jewish or Jewish orientated literature and my personal study desk once belonged to a Jewish Rabbi. I am also a member of an International cultural / historical society that explore among other things the underground early Judean / European exchanges, cultural and religious.
This can wait for another time.
However as an academic I bitterly resent the fact that I cannot debate an issue on it’s own terms, if I have a polemic argument to make on a ‘sensitive issue’, which considering how Israeli propagandists have intertwined religious and political issues, now means that any political comment is immediately labeled ‘Anti-Semitic’, I have first to either trawl the sites of Israeli military ‘refusnics’ or em Jewish friends to make sure that my ass is covered and that I am quoting from impeccable Jewish sources if I am to avoid implications such as in your post.
So much for free speech ! There already have been a number of attempts by political opponents using the ‘anti-semitic’ smear to get me off slugger when argument on fair political exchanges failed to silence me.
Behind this ‘taboo’ screen Internationally, such things as the unmitigated abuse of the Palestinian Peoples and the Israeli unaccountable and unacknowledged Nuclear program continue without proper international debate or scrutiny.
However that for another day. If you are so concerned about this issue why not author an article to allow debate on the subject ?
As i read many people on here think that to kill sammy bin lid, was ok, then i hope I wont be flaged for commenting that it would also be ok for Tony liar and George burning bush, to be killed in the same manner by people who think/hold them responsible for the deaths of 1000s, oh and if some of their children also get killed in the process well thats just tough.
Al Quida would certainly think it to be OK and would do it if they thought they could get past the security. May even be planning it.
excluding the children,We (the royal we) live in hope joe we live in hope.
Joe : “…A blast from the past when at early 70′s meetings they were always annoyed at Republicans about something and when there were not enough Chiefs to go around, they always managed to have an indian or two there to get annoyed for them…..”
Sorry, omission, should have read
“…A blast from the past when at early 70′s meetings the Peoples Democracy types were always annoyed at Republicans about something and when there were not enough Chiefs to go around, they always managed to have an indian or two there to get annoyed for them.
MV,
Sorry to disappoint you but I terminated my association, for what it was worth, with the PD at Christmas 1968.
Pip : “… Spare me! This belated attack of ‘I love America and apple pie, and by the way I’m related to half of New York is nothing more than your usual patter…….”
Unfortunately when certain people are devoid of political argument and continually resort to labeling people they do not agree with as ‘anti-American’ then it is necessary, albeit be it with weary resignation to constantly restate the obvious !
This cohmphernsion problem seems to be particularly acute in females of certain vintage that live West of The Shannon !
Rory Carr
Still with the need to be liked? Read this thread before you jump to wrong, not to mention silly, conclusions.
MV
I hope that question re media aspirations was not intended for me, nothing could be further from the truth. I would run like the cowards in the IRA at the first hint of media or any other intrusion into my life.
I defend the US on this thread because I believe the way they executed Bin Laden was up to them, generally I take the view that some politicians should be on trial for war crimes regarding the invasion of Iraq, I make an exception to my own principles in the case of Bin Laden.
MV
That”s funny I was rather thinking the same about people who label folks they disagree with on the military interventions in the middle east as Blair/Bush poodles.
They obviously aren’t quite ‘on message’ with the Michael Moore / moveon.org / George Galloway intellectual ‘big guns’ yet in the way that the self-loathers – some of them outspoken cheerleaders for the scum of the earth – are, hmmm ?
JoeC,
Case of the Jusuits I am afraid, in my experience once the PD’s got the child, or in this case the teen, they can answer for the man!
Pip : “…I hope that question re media aspirations was not intended for me, nothing could be further from the truth. I would run like the cowards in the IRA at the first hint of media or any other intrusion into my life……”
How in the name of creation could you in any way link my ‘media poke’ as being aimed at you, unless of course you are a Simon look alike ?
Could have this all wrong of course, perhaps a certain TUV politician that it was aimed at, is leading a double life and is secretly roaming around the West of Ireland for part of the week wearing a dress ?
The mind boggles, I give up on this one !
“I would be a little more understanding of their culture than you apparently are of Ben Laden’s religious ethos and I would not use terms like ’scumbag’ and ‘ Mongrel dogs’ to describe them.” – Munsterview
In common with bigots (not saying you are one, merely that you have common traits) you fail to distinguish between all and some, and also conflate seperate categories without regard to the delineation that is apparent to rational people.
So, for example, while I correctly classify your late and much lamented hero, Osama Bin Laden, as a scumbag, your flawed mental processes conflate the category of scumbag, person, and – bizarrely – all those who are either Arab or of Islamic faith or both.
That is category of “them” that is invented by said mental processes when, in reality (a thing you are not well acquainted with), there is one a particular person placed in that category.
This confusion in your own strange mind is then used by you to engage in sectarianism by referring a collective category of Jews as “these sectarian long bearded religious fanatics.” You feel justified in introducing Jews into the discourse and disparaging them as a collective because your warped mental process have compelled you to think that all Arabs and Muslims have been referred to a ‘scumbags’ and this error brings out the inner bigot in you as a form of ‘retaliation.’
You are again repeating the flawed reasoning that I referred to earlier in the thread:
“The common fallacy proffered by terrorist apologists here is that terrorism is a perfectly normal human response to political disputes. In reality, it is profoundly abnormal by definition since only a tiny minority of subhumans engage in it.
The percentage is considerably less than the percentage of the general populaton who are afflicted with a violent personality disorder, so it is that abnormal minority who look for an excuse to engage in activity that their pathological malfunction compels them to enage in and some of whom find that excuse in what they preceive to be abuse of their subhuman rights.” – Alias
“How many Arabs are there? Now count the number of suicide bombers. Is it a more significant percentage that 0000.1%? Not even close…” – Alias
So, you can see (well, you can’t because your a wee bit gone in the head) but others can see that Osama does not represent the almost absolute majority of Arabs or Muslims. Said scumbag represents the mentally ill – that 0000.1% who respond to political issues in a pathological way – and not the other 99.999% who are not mentally ill and so respond rationally.
Munsterview (profile) 12 May 2011 at 2:50 pm
( To avoid digression I again re-iterate that as a Republican I am totally opposed to Ben Laden’s organization, to their methods as I also am to their political and religious ideologies)
Alias (profile) 12 May 2011 at 7:26 pm
So, for example, while I correctly classify your late and much lamented hero, Osama Bin Laden, as ……..
Typical Isralie wrongdoing, apologist, propaganda tactic……. keep repeating the ‘big lie’ again and again as often as it takes until it sticks and becomes part of the record !
Yes Alias, it works but it is underhanded, unscruplious, unprincipled and unethical but sadly all too typical of many of your contributions.
MV
I owe you an apology I didn’t read your comment correctly, I can’t think why….
Pip,
Ah suks, you had to go and spoil it !
You could have left the apology until to-morrow and left me with the image of that male politician flouncing around the West of Ireland in female attire for part of the week ! Pity that!
MV
Whatever floats your boat, or should that be yacht….
A new compelling reason as to why the US will not release any photographic evidence of Bin Laden’s assassination has been drawn to my attention: It wasn’t Bin Laden who was killed !
Or at least according to repentant socialist ( well, Trotskyist really, which is hardly the same thing) and, more recently, cheerleader for George W Bush, the infallible Christopher Hitchens, who pontificated in the Daily Mirror on 12 September 2003, “Why I think bin Laden is dead…and has been for at least a year.”
I now eagerly await a series of journalistic scoops from jaded hacks in the near future (and, in the spirit of Dianagate, over the next twenty years) letting us all know, “Why I think bin Laden is still alive !”.
Rory,
as I posted earlier, all part witting or unwittingly of the great disinformation and misinformation propaganda war !
When Bin Laden’s immediate family who witnessed the killing or killings finally get to speak, it will probably under a previously reached agreement with the Pakistani authorities where the narrative will be very tightly controlled.
The full factual story is unlikely to be told and the volume of speculation already out there will already ensure that such facts as are emerging are immediately diluted, if not actually lost in the propaganda garbage. This operation it seems was a long time in the planning and that included the post Bin Laden killing phase of it.
As operations go and as I posted earlier, the US got this one right on the day and since !
For moi
No. Because Stones’ friends in the PLO…
And for MV
So, for example, while I correctly classify your late and much lamented hero, Osama Bin Laden…
With that level of engagement it sounds like I’m back on the school bus.
Pip
I’m a bit shocked at the level of anti Americanism on this thread.
I’d be grateful if you could point it out. Rory’s ‘Lard-ass’ comment aside. I would have thought i was quite fond of the average american, unless it seems Im not aware of the fact that i actually hate the personage of some people Im thought i was in awe of. Shall i bin my John Lee Hooker albums? How about my predilection for John Carpenter movies, do i actually hate them? The Coen brothers too i suppose? I guess if people dislike the way Silvio Berlusconi runs Italy, they should snap their Fellini dvd’s (goodybye Mastroianni you handsome devil)
If not, then I fear you may be falling into the nice little anti-discourse trap our old US foreign policy enthusiasts like to employ. Can you explain how opposing undoubtedly nefarious aspects of US foreign policy makes one hate all americans? (which is the basic inference that ridiculous term implies)
Can you explain how this tactic is really only employed with regard to the two countries I mentioned earlier? And do you realise that by insinuating that somebody who highlights and opposes odious features of US foreign policy (and unfortunately there are many and lots past) is there-fore ‘anti-american’ you are thereby saddling every single american citizen with that aforementioned unsavoury set of policies. By extension it infers that to be against the polices of the US govt, you are ergo against all Americans (hence the anti-Americanism slur). As im sure you realise, nowhere near all US citizens support their govts many unsavoury actions. So if they can, surely we have the right to as well, and by doing so, how does it invalidate our love and likes of other things Americana?
RS
Sorry, I wont this time. I have had enough for now. If I’m not careful I will end up reading that Elvis is alive too!