Osama bin Laden is dead

[Edric O]

The man who somehow managed to elude the US military and assassins intelligence services for a longer period of time than any other enemy leader that the US ever fought in any war, is finally dead.

He started his career as a CIA-backed fundamentalist leader fighting against Soviet forces and Afghan communists in the 1980s. It is very appropriate that he died on May Day. I heard that Pakistani communists - who are currently engaged in a guerrilla war against both the Taliban and Pakistani government forces in the west of the country - jokingly sent a letter of thanks to the US embassy for giving them such a nice present on their main holiday, and suggested that the US should also assassinate other former CIA operatives. Hehe.

[ErasOmnius]

I am looking forward to That Day when bin Laden tells everything that he knows about The West. You see they didn't bring him in for questioning, for a type of 'fair trial', or anything of the sort. Can't risk him saying something 'inappropriate'.

[Digital Guerrilla]

I heard that Donald Trump wants to see the death certificate because he does not believe Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.

[athanasios]

The moron wants a death certificate? LOL. That could be faked more easily. We want to see the body. If there is no dead body, Osama is alive and Obama a liar.

[ErasOmnius]

I'm ultra-sure bin Laden id dead. With no chance to talk about what he knows about The West. Can't spill the beans about the 1980s and the 1990s when he was a complete friend. His actions, so well planned, have re-structured The West in ways never dreamed possible by The Powers that rule us. The Patriot Act, The Wars in the Middle East. Always a bogey-man in the mountains to justify almost any course of action.

Actions taken by the US, UK, and NATO today would not have been allowed before Osama. Fifteen years ago it would have been unimaginable to park 'The Fleet' outside of Benghazi and Tripoli and fire every type of missile imaginable onto so-called enemy forces. The Patriot Act extends into every transaction in the US involving $10,000 or more., From applying for loan, to depositing money into a commercial account, every transaction over $10k has the right to be completely scrutinized by the government.

Poor Osama, a former CIA operative, killed by intelligence and cooperation from that very CIA.

The London Times has a great interview asking why Osama wasn't quizzed extensively.

[Anathema]

This has been said so often in the media that it's become a cliche, but I'll repeat it: I'd rather have seen him get tried in court as a criminal.

a CIA-backed fundamentalist leader

The US supported the Afghan mujahideen, a loose coalition of indigenous resistance forces. Bin Laden was a Saudi Arab who brought his own money. There's no evidence that he personally received any support from the USA, and why would he want it anyway? He was filthy rich himself, and hated the USA just as much as the Soviets.

Never heard of any communist rebels in Pakistan...neitther has wikipedia, or are you referring to another part of Pakistan?

[athanasios]

If he is really dead and thrown into the sea this will backfire for sure on US. Muslims have the right to a proper burial. USA is offending their religion. I agree with the article linked by ErasOmnius.

[Lord J]

Osama is considered a villain of the highest order by probably 90% of Americans. I think a fair trial would have been nice for international relations, but Americans generally just wanted him dead. I think the announcement was the best outcome to be expected. I wouldn't be surprised, actually, if the Seals were ordered to capture Bin Laden, but one shot him. I suspect the pictures will be released, but just like the whole stupid birth certificate thing, it's not going to be proof enough for anyone. I can see the "burial at sea" thing as being a possible source of problems, but I don't really care, and I doubt that most Americans care any more than I do. I don't think bin laden's religious beliefs (if they actually existed at all) should be observed, considering that he betrayed his own beliefs by ordering the 9/11 attacks.

Edit: I personally think burial at sea is the probably one of the nicest things they could have done for him, or his religious beliefs. Dragging his body through the streets and burning the remains would have been an... Interesting solution.

[Dante]

Burial at sea is a valid option for muslims, but only when there's no family and no volunteers to accept the body. That the US didn't even try to find someone to accept the body for burial has gone over poorly in some quarters, even though (they claim) the body was treated with all the customary respect, including having someone to say the correct prayers over him.

Having said that, there is a rumour that the US did ask Saudi Arabia (his place of birth, though he was denationalised in 1994) if they would like to take custody of the body. The Saudis vehemently refused. The US, and I use the term loosely now, as the decision would have been with only a handful of people, had a choice between keeping the body longer than 24 hours in order to find a place for it or finding someone else. Finding someone else would have taken time, and in any case, one thing they really didn't want is for any grave site to become a shrine or trigger for violence. Furthermore, finding someone else would have invited accusations of disrespect, of treating the body improperly, possibly even invited attacks to get it back.

All in all, I think burial at sea was the best possible compromise. It technically followed muslim traditions, thus didn't anger the wrong people, and it removed the possibility of the body being used as a focal point for... well, anything. Not releasing the pictures, while fuelling conspiracy theories, is also probably for the best. The less people know, the less they have, the less power he has as a martyr. All in all, America took the civilised route, and it looks good.

I might have preferred to see him taken alive, to be honest. It would have been a powerful statement, a broken old man standing trial in New York. ...But perhaps this is for the best. If he had his day in court, he could have used it as a springboard, could have shown continued defiance, acted as inspiration.

Finally, have a gander at this:

It took almost ten years, but Osama is dead. That is the good news.

The bad news is Obama is going to do what most politicians do, especially the liberal politicians. He is going to take credit for something that not only he had little to do with, but had we actually listened to him, the event never would have happened.

…

What should have happened, which would not happen under the Obama regime and to be fair, the Bush administration was too politically correct to do this either, but Osama’s body should have not been immediately buried. We should have told everyone that the body was wrapped in pig fat before burial.

Why?

It is not just the visceral insult. It is sending a message. Contrary to what the politically correct say, Osama does represent the mainstream of Islam. By defiling the body, we say that you are not getting your 72 virgins. This should be the policy we have with every Islamic terrorist we capture. If you die, we are going to deny you paradise. If we capture you, we are going to feed you nothing but pork until you talk.

From Judson Philips, head of Tea Party Nation.

Now I admit, I don't know just how much influence this group has. Whatever the Tea Party movement is, it is not centralised and does not have anything so organised as an official body to act as speaker for the rest. But this guy seems to have some sway, or at least some ability to have his words heard. And that's worrisome. The Obama administration took every pain to ensure that as few people as possible would be angry at treatment of the body, but this guy and others like him seem positively eager to fan the flames. It's like they want to be attacked.

...Which now that I think about it would make them martyrs. Maybe that's no so far from the truth.

[ErasOmnius]

I suppose if one just wants to believe that everything that one's government does is always 'above board' that everything is 'just perfect' in the killing of Osama bin Laden.

There are always so many open ended questions when it comes bin Laden, that one wonders what the truth ever is.

Did Clinton have the chance to kill him in 1996 and 1998, but missed the opportunity because of golf in 1996, and Monica in 1998? That would seem very strange for Bill Clinton, who may have just allowed him to live to have the 'bogeyman of hills' still living.

Obviously I believe that 9/11 was the product of a type of government plot, involving bin Laden taking 'the credit' for the event. Lots of circumstantial coincidences, the Trade Center being sold right before the attack to poor Larry Silverstein. The deal closes on July 24th, the Title is irrevocably set on Sept 9th, and two days later, poof.

Within months, things change for the Leader of The West, the USA. Axis of Evil, The USA can 'invade' any country that harbors terrorists, the Patriot Act, etc. Because the 'boogeyman' might get us! So we are all supposed to believe that he has been living in a mansion, comfortably, in a suburb of Islamabad, with his family, servants, and retainers; and that we are simply finding out about it now, almost 10 years later?

We have seen on 'Family Guy' skits, Saturday Night Live skits, over and over ad inifnitum, that he was supposed to believing in the mountains of Pakistan--uncomfortably. But instead, not only has he not been living in a cold, dark cave, without electricity, natural gas, and running water for a decade; but instead, he has been living the opposite lifestyle.

Sorry, I'm too skeptical; Bush, Cheney, Biden and Obama.

[Wolf]

Athanasios: DG was joking about the death certificate thing. It was a reference to the "birther" "controversy" (both got scare-quoted for different reasons) that was big last month. No one has actually asked for a death certificate, don't worry.

[athanasios]

If Bin Laden is dead then Obama is a MURDERER. Bin Laden, instead of having a fair trial was MURDERED and Obama should be driven to the electric chair or the gallows (am I right Wolf?). But the murderers of the world dictatorship are above the law. Law is only for the masses.

[Wolf]

Nope, wrong about everything, as usual.

1. The circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death are unknown to us, but even the most probable reality is one where some (or even many) legitimate grounds exist for Osama's death at the hands of U.S. special forces.

2. The U.S. does not use the electric chair, or gallows.

3. There is no "world dictatorship" simply a loose affiliation of governments that infrequently cooperate only when it suits their self-interest.

4. The law is for everyone; even the mighty are brought down, from time to time--but then again, how many of the poor and disposessed do you think get away with infractions? You're only upset about one of those two things because you have a completely irrational subjective bias for one group, most likely because you identify with it more strongly.

So... yeah, actually, you were wrong about everything, as usual. That's okay: I don't hate you, Athanasios, I just have absolutely no respect for you or your opinions because of your ignorance and the arrogant certainty with which you smear it all over this forum like the feces of a rabid cat on the veterinarian's table.

[ErasOmnius]

There is no world dictatorship, however there is The West/NATO, which controls 3/5ths of the world's armed forces; and almost 100% of the world's high-tech forces, so let's not pretend that it's leaders do not have some great sway over large tracts of humanity.

Having said that, there are always going to be a lot of un-answered questions surrounding Osama bin Laden. Lots of strange circumstantial evidence how he lived so long in the 1990s, when sharp-as-a-tack Bill Clinton was in the White House. How a so-called 'boogeyman' could have pulled off something as big as 9/11. How he was supposed to be living in a cave in the mountains of Pakistan/Afghanistan, but ended up living in the 'burbs of Islamabad in a semi-mansion?

Guess we will all have to wait for That Day to hear what he has to say, because unlike the Nuremburg Trials, or Milosevic at The Hague -- he was gunned down, with no chance of explaining what he knew, and when he knew, or what even the future plans of al-Qaeda were.

The Leader of The West simply went on TV last Sunday to say that bin Laden was found, gunned down, and his body dumped in the northern branch of the Indian Ocean. No pics. Discerning minds ask questions. We don't let things slide just because the Leader at the time explaining has [-Democrat] after their name, instead of [-Republican].

[Wolf]

Look, while Osama was instrumental in founding al-Qaeda and in planning the pre-2001 terror attacks, he hasn't been instrumental in fighting us since our invasions into Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I think his execution reflects the understanding that, once founded, and once given the morale to carry out attacks against secular Muslims and Westerners, generally, al-Qaeda pretty much runs itself. There wasn't anything he could tell us that we didn't already know about the group's combat operations, or, if there was, there was nothing that we could glean from him with any sort of reliability. Given the difficulties of trying KSM in New York and the obvious fiasco that any civilian or military application of due process to Osama would be, I don't think the U.S. wanted to open itself up to another round of useless internal political fights regarding the treatment of a high-profile POW. Post-2001, Osama bin Laden became purely symbolic to al-Qaeda; and his destruction was equally symbolic for the United States. Conspiracy theories regarding his death are a waste of time that, if you are a distinguished, elder scholar, you may have the privilege of indulging in, but even then I wouldn't recommend it. It's a purely masturbatory exercise.

[ErasOmnius]

Wolf, first off, thank you for the excellent article. Very, very good. Mr Chomsky is so correct about the naming of the Operation itself, and the naming of our weapons that kill people, that one has to say to one-self, a Homer Simpson-like 'doh'. In that I, and others, of Christian academia, did not realize this much earlier. I have already sent the article to be printed off, and will be handing out copies tomorrow and Tuesday.

But, as a person who has divorced himself from the political process, I feel more free to complain and moan about all politicians in both major US parties, including the Leader of The West/NATO who occupies the Oval Office. But I do realize that bin Laden has become more of a figure-head over the past few years, and his guiding of al-Qaeda was probably more of a ceremonial post, rather than running any of the day-to-day operations. But even though recent al-Qaeda figures have had a showcase-oriented atmosphere being tried in the Great City of New York, I still think it would have been best to bring him the Big Apple, and give him the right to a 'fair trial', and more especially, hear what he has to say. But The Powers of The West had other ideas; Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden leading the decision-making.

So it seems that people are afraid of this, even though it might have been a better way.

[Wolf]

Well, Chomsky is wrong about a lot. He's also sloppy. For instance, he has no awareness of the fact that the current German air force is called the "Luftwaffe" (it's just the German word for "air force"), and, therefore, his comparison between them and the USAF is highly inappropriate unless he specifically referred to the Nazi German Luftwaffe. But I think Chomsky's also aware that bin Laden's death is primarily a propaganda victory for the U.S., as opposed to a tactical or strategic one. I think where Chomsky and most of the American public differ, though, is on the issue of the killing's legitimacy. He tries to make a comparison of bin Laden to Bush, and suggests that Americans wouldn't support an extrajudicial assassination of their democratically-elected leader. He's right, they wouldn't, but not because they agree with him: it's because Bush was still elected according to a legal process, and the "criminality" of his behavior is still highly in dispute. The same is not true about bin Laden: there is no dispute. Bin Laden wasn't a democratically-elected leader, a recognized diplomat, or even a foreign citizen minding his own business. He was an outlaw, and had himself rebuffed the protections of civilized states. Chomsky ignores this very important point that most people realize intuitively: there was no debate that bin Laden was a criminal, and the law permits the killing of criminals in self-defense. I will acknowledge that there are issues inherent to exploding that concept to cover the behavior of states in aggregate, but it seems that the reaction of the international community has been largely... supportive. Chomsky's just upset that America in reality never conformed to his idealized view of what America should be. But Noam Chomsky isn't Fuehrer, and his resulting embitterment is largely... juvenile.

[ErasOmnius]

Generally, across our nation, the inherent, imminent threat of death inside of our homes, necessitates the 'self defense' theory; and, it had better be completely non-disprovable to any prosecutor, for this right to be upheld. If not, some so-called victims inside their homes can find themselves being prosecuted, as well some trigger-happy '2nd Amendment' gun people do need to be.

But, I think that the whole idea of saying that bin Laden's death is a propagandic or ceremonial one, then going on to say that The West/USA can terminate his life out of some sort self-defense, is a type of contradiction in and of itself. If his death is not tactical or strategic for the imminent self-defense of one of the members of NATO/The USA/The West, then how can his death be in self-defense? It really cannot be. His imminent death, and not being brought to trial, was necessitated for political purposes. Obama's popularity up 10%, conservative [actually war-mongering] Democrats and Republicans Senators/Congressmen popularity up 7-9%, Romney the war-monger up against his fellow Party nomination-seekers up huge numbers.

You're right in that bin Laden does not have a natural constituency to 'fight for' the fact that he was not given a trial, as George Bush would; so therefore bin Laden found himself alone. But his far-flung followers will probably try revenge. I do not like bin Laden, he was an evil man, reprehensible -- but he should have been put on trial. Every time The West wants to take a short cut, everyone is supposed to hop on board. Be it putting bin Laden on trial, or going to War in Libya without a vote in Congress. These are dangerous precedents that I think Chomsky is right to bring up, not idealized views of America.

[Wolf]

I was worried you would interpret the words "self defense" wrongly. I did not refer to the fact that bin Laden in his own person directly threatened the United States sufficiently to justify his murder, although that is also the case, instead, I referred to the fact that his destruction hastens this war, or at least some campaign within it, to an end, and that is not only a justifiable form of self-defense but also of self-defense by proxy (wherein you protect the lives and interests of others). Propaganda victories are real victories, nevertheless, and even if not, he is still one less enemy combatant or supporter. You assumed, wrongly, that when I said Osama was not in a real leadership capacity, that he was not also serving some support or other capacity within al-Qaeda. Just because his leadership of the organization may currently be insubstantial (or, because of the nature of the organization, it has always been substantially leaderless) it does not mean that he has no role, and if he has any role, then his assassination could still be argued on self-defense grounds. The intel gathered from his compound seems to indicate plans to attack U.S. rail infrastructure and urban communities--that certainly seems to qualify. You need to grasp a greater depth of subtlety in argument if you are to succeed as an instructor.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Andrew
fixed a word

[Dante]

But, as a person who has divorced himself from the political process, I feel more free to complain and moan about all politicians in both major US parties...

I'm surprised Wolf didn't point this out, but perhaps he's just trying to concentrate on the argument at hand rather than your personal stupidity. Regardless, being uninvolved in the political process doesn't give you a greater right to criticise. In fact, it completely removes your right to criticise. You remove yourself from the process of ordering pizza, you lose the right to complain when it arrives with anchovies. You whine about the status quo, do nothing to change it and think that somehow grants you greater perspective to whine more? Grow up.

So, who thinks Obama can use this to ride to victory in 2012?

[Wolf]

Also, no one is divorced from the political process unless they leave the locality which that process governs. (Which I totally encourage you to do.) I mean, it's completely moronic. Saying you're not involved doesn't mean you don't pay taxes, that you're free to ignore laws and that other countries will refuse to treat you as an American citizen. You're in the boat, and you can participate in the steering of the boat or not, and you can choose not to, but that's either laziness or idiocy, because that boat is going somewhere whether you like it or not with you in it. I ignored ErassOmnius because it's something a child would say: utter nonsense. You may be ignorant, you may be poorly-read, you may be simple-minded, but no one is "separate" and no one can separate themselves unless they do so physically. (Which, again, you're totally invited to do.) To borrow from Yakov Smirnoff, the party can always find you.

[Andrew]

I tried splitting the thread where it completely derailed.

Try to play nice now.

So, who thinks Obama can use this to ride to victory in 2012?

I think it will help him a lot. I mean who can be against the guy who killed Osama, something Bush failed for 7 years (in the eyes of American public).

[ErasOmnius]

I didn't say I was divorced from living in a particular nation. or from paying taxes, or from reality. And I know as Yakov would say, the Feds are soon-to-be, 'at the door'.

I am not deluded into thinking that either of the two parties cares one iota of what is important to me. This is what I have found out for example in the area of aborting people before birth. Democrats are open about their abortions, Republicans like abortion just as much, only are secret about their own. So even though millions of 'church'-going Americans can vote for Republicans based solely on the 'issue' of abortion; abortion always manages to stay completely legal, even partial-birth abortions.

Another issue is that Republicans love The War. And in the guise of patriotism, they are always oh-so wondrous in kissing-the-military's butt, in what-ever the military does. Be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria [which is next], or the 143 army, air or naval bases around the globe. The trillion dollars on so-called Defense spending. The 11 super-fleets, each with their own 1500-foot long aircraft carrier. Republicans--how they sure do love The War. Democrats love The War, too; especially when it is a Democrat who is waging The War; even though when a Republican is waging The War they scream and get into a hissy fit -- but still vote to fund and go to War anyway.

So I am divorced from the Process of Politics, even as it is interesting, and I actually teach it.

BTW: Obama is sure to be re-elected. Why else would The Fed be keeping interest rates at 4.5% annually, when the currency is collapsing due to our disclosed $14 Trillion debt? It's actually higher when you count in unfunded MediCare and Social Security payments through 2018. Why would Congress and The Administration print money like a drunken sailor when the US's total aggregate debt is greater that the sum total of the aggregate debt of the entire world before 1980? The answer is to get us through re-election time in 2012. Even as that wasn't helping, the death of bin Laden is what is called a 'guarantee' for Barack. As The NATO Fleet moves against it's next target, Obama is sure to be known as the 'George Washington' of the Middle East. First Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, then Syria -- all getting their freedom.

[athanasios]

Don't be very quick to assume that he will be elected again. Of course there is no rival at the moment at it looks that he will benefit from the death of Osama and be elected again. But till 2012 it is a long way.How will the economy be then, what new threat or even natural disaster may strike we do not know. And how successful will he be in managing it?

EDIT: Ops I must be more careful to what I say. I shouldn't have skipped this:

'Bin Laden dead long before US raid'

[Andrew]

Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says

Good parody.

Obama approval hits 60 percent

Killing OBL has been good for Obama ratings.