Riiiiight. Like the elites would ever let THAT happen. Just like they would let Oswald sing, huh?
Osama Bin Laden is Dead
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
Riiiiight. Like the elites would ever let THAT happen. Just like they would let Oswald sing, huh?
Futhermore he would have been compensated by the US for all the bother and everything they caused by chasing him around and such. What....you don't believe me?
Celebrating a killing as if it were a victory, is a bit strange.
So is achieving "closure" for 9/11 via the killing of someone only symbolically or psychologically connected with the event.
Was there a time, a while in its history, when the US did not need to do symbolic killing - kill the Emperor to achieve "closure" for Pearl Harbor, say?
The scene is a little more civilized than Saddam's capture and hanging, and better motivated than Che Guevara's assassination
(these two chosen because they were announced in the same words: "We got him!")
but such judgments are made dubious by their very necessity.
It was a victory, terrorism itself is largely symbolic, as opposed to strategic.
What is your opinion on the beheading video? Real or fake Zarqawi? We could probably find an Arabic speaker familiar with various Arabic accents to tell us whether or not the allegation that the accent was clearly wrong is true or false.
I say I don't know and I don't trust the US government. Yes I claim special knowledge and special objectivity. I want the truth regardless of who the truth supports while I accuse others of placing their loyalties above their desire for truth.
You accuse me of accepting conspiracy theory on faith but haven't you rejected conspiracy theory on faith?
Why are people still talking about this? He dead, its over, move on, hey Palestine just signed a major unity agreement, that has got to be important... no, nope, how badly osama's skull was blown open is more important it seems.
I think you said that Hitchens brought you back to your pro war position in the Hitchens Galloway debate.
Name something intelligent that Hitchens said that persuaded you and I will pick that point it apart. I have yet to hear anything of substance from Hitchens so I don't know where to start.
He said that the WMD debate was unnecessary. Just the fact that Saddam did gas the Kurds sacrificed his claim to be a legitimate ruler. He did hide nuclear centrifuge parts. He did torture his own people. He was undermining the oil for food program. He could not be trusted to behave himself, and this was all the more important since he sat on a crossroads of the world's economy (the oil), which gave him the funding to support terror. He paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.
You shouldn't trust the government on everything, but some things are too obvious to lie about. Certainly the details may be debated, but DNA evidence doesn't lie. You are multiplying premises unnecessarily. You would have to believe that there was no Bin Laden or he was just a scapegoat, that we bombed NY, Flight 93, the Pentagon, the USS Cole, and sites in Mumbai, Kenya, and Tanzania. You would have to believe that jihadists don't exist or could not be so effectual.
I think the USSR would have collapsed anyway. I don't believe we over-reacted in most ways, although Bush did subvert some of our constitutional rights. Our financial crisis had nothing to do with 9/11.
I assume that was the main reason.
But only after they'd surrendered. Before that point, the Nazis were treated to systematic lethal countermeasures.
So, sure, as far as that parallel goes: if Al Qaeda is willing (and able) to explicitly, permanently surrender, then it would be appropriate to try them in court rather than hunt them down and kill them. Until then, not so much.
Not that various AQ terrorists haven't been apprehended and fed into the legal system.
That's because they aren't craven enough to go in for your stilted misuse of "extrajudicial killing" and "death penalty." Such is a problem for you, not for Europe.
Last edited:
Killing enemies in wartime is not "murder."
But, call Americans whatever you like. The point is that if you threaten them, they'll pursue you to the ends of the Earth and destroy you. You don't wage wars to convince armchair internet moralists that you're a really elevated culture. You do it to convince your enemies that you're dangerous and determined polity.
Also, Juan Cole on the Top 10 Myths About Bin Laden's Death:
1. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf held that Bin Laden had long been dead. Not true. Musharraf said in 2002 that he thought Bin Laden might have died. But then he learned through CIA interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (captured spring 2003) that Bin Laden was still alive. Musharraf thereafter accepted that the al-Qaeda leader was still around and never again said that he was dead.
2. Former President George W. Bush ‘spent much of his presidency looking for Bin Laden.’ In fact, Bush said in 2002 that capturing Bin Laden was not a high priority: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 In 2006, he closed down the CIA Bin Laden desk.
3. The intelligence that allowed the identification of Bin Laden’s courier, which led the CIA to the safe house in Abbottabad, was gained through waterboarding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It was not. The information was elicited during conversations with the detainees. Torture often produces resistance and disinformation, as with Sheikh al-Libi’s allegations that Saddam Hussein was training al-Qaeda in chemical weapons.
4. Bin Laden died with a gun in his hands. He did not, though he may have been going for one.
5. Bin Laden grabbed a wife as a human shield. He did not, though it may have looked like it to one of the SEALs, since she put herself between him and them.
6. The Pakistani press speculated that Bin Laden’s bodyguards shot him to keep him from falling into American hands. They did not. The guards were on the first floor, were armed, and resisted the SEALs, who shot them to death along with a woman who was caught in the crossfire.
7. Bin Laden was executed by US forces. He was not. His wife lunged at the SEALS and was shot in the leg. Then Bin Laden made threatening moves (looked as if he was going for a weapon?), and he was shot. [Having the authority to kill is not the same as being ordered to assassinate. There would certainly have been fears the house was booby-trapped or that Bin Laden had a gun somewhere on his person, so his refusal to freeze when so ordered was a serious potential threat.]
8. Bin Laden was assassinated. He was not. First of all, he was the leader of a para-statal organization that had declared war on the United States. If the US could have stormed Hitler’s bunker and taken him out, it would not have been an assassination, any more than being able to take out an enemy general on the battlefield would be. Second, the SEALs fired only when he made a threatening move, which is a form of self-defense. There is every reason to believe that the US would have preferred to take Bin Laden alive, since they could have then interrogated him about ongoing terrorism plans.
9. Muslims have been silent about the killing of Bin Laden. Not true. There has been widespread Muslim condemnation of Bin Laden and expressions of relief that he is gone from the scene.
10. That Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad proves that the Pakistani military was harboring him. This is possible but not proved by this mere fact. Murtaza Haider, himself from northwestern Pakistan, notes in the Scientific American:
1. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf held that Bin Laden had long been dead. Not true. Musharraf said in 2002 that he thought Bin Laden might have died. But then he learned through CIA interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (captured spring 2003) that Bin Laden was still alive. Musharraf thereafter accepted that the al-Qaeda leader was still around and never again said that he was dead.
2. Former President George W. Bush ‘spent much of his presidency looking for Bin Laden.’ In fact, Bush said in 2002 that capturing Bin Laden was not a high priority: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 In 2006, he closed down the CIA Bin Laden desk.
3. The intelligence that allowed the identification of Bin Laden’s courier, which led the CIA to the safe house in Abbottabad, was gained through waterboarding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It was not. The information was elicited during conversations with the detainees. Torture often produces resistance and disinformation, as with Sheikh al-Libi’s allegations that Saddam Hussein was training al-Qaeda in chemical weapons.
4. Bin Laden died with a gun in his hands. He did not, though he may have been going for one.
5. Bin Laden grabbed a wife as a human shield. He did not, though it may have looked like it to one of the SEALs, since she put herself between him and them.
6. The Pakistani press speculated that Bin Laden’s bodyguards shot him to keep him from falling into American hands. They did not. The guards were on the first floor, were armed, and resisted the SEALs, who shot them to death along with a woman who was caught in the crossfire.
7. Bin Laden was executed by US forces. He was not. His wife lunged at the SEALS and was shot in the leg. Then Bin Laden made threatening moves (looked as if he was going for a weapon?), and he was shot. [Having the authority to kill is not the same as being ordered to assassinate. There would certainly have been fears the house was booby-trapped or that Bin Laden had a gun somewhere on his person, so his refusal to freeze when so ordered was a serious potential threat.]
8. Bin Laden was assassinated. He was not. First of all, he was the leader of a para-statal organization that had declared war on the United States. If the US could have stormed Hitler’s bunker and taken him out, it would not have been an assassination, any more than being able to take out an enemy general on the battlefield would be. Second, the SEALs fired only when he made a threatening move, which is a form of self-defense. There is every reason to believe that the US would have preferred to take Bin Laden alive, since they could have then interrogated him about ongoing terrorism plans.
9. Muslims have been silent about the killing of Bin Laden. Not true. There has been widespread Muslim condemnation of Bin Laden and expressions of relief that he is gone from the scene.
10. That Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad proves that the Pakistani military was harboring him. This is possible but not proved by this mere fact. Murtaza Haider, himself from northwestern Pakistan, notes in the Scientific American:
‘ It’s standard in Pakistan to build these humongous compounds, where living quarters are covered by green space and that green space is then gated and there’s a boundary wall, which is usually substantially high with barbed wire on top of it. It’s not something out of the ordinary.
This is a very tribal culture where people—men, especially—believe that women should not be seen by strangers. In addition, a large number of tribal Pashtuns living in the area became wealthy by the drug trade and could afford to build these compounds—this whole area is a major trade route for opium. Another reason to build those compounds is security. A lot of wealthy Pashtuns have disputes with their cousins over land that they have inherited. Because of these inheritance disputes, a lot of people end up hurting or killing their own cousins over their land. So it’s common to build these compounds to ward off attacks from your relatives who may be after your land as well.
If it is true that Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, I’m not at all surprised because that is a place where a lot of these radicalized clerics came from. What does surprise me was his proximity to the Pakistani military academy, which is the West Point of Pakistan, where all the commissioned officers get trained. It is surprising that he was bold enough to find refuge so close to the military training college. There are a lot of people who are trying to create intimations that the military was perhaps involved. You know, if the military were involved they wouldn’t have kept him there; they would have kept him 100 miles away from that place. It’s possible that the military was looking for bin Laden everywhere, and that’s the last place they would have bothered to look.’
This is a very tribal culture where people—men, especially—believe that women should not be seen by strangers. In addition, a large number of tribal Pashtuns living in the area became wealthy by the drug trade and could afford to build these compounds—this whole area is a major trade route for opium. Another reason to build those compounds is security. A lot of wealthy Pashtuns have disputes with their cousins over land that they have inherited. Because of these inheritance disputes, a lot of people end up hurting or killing their own cousins over their land. So it’s common to build these compounds to ward off attacks from your relatives who may be after your land as well.
If it is true that Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, I’m not at all surprised because that is a place where a lot of these radicalized clerics came from. What does surprise me was his proximity to the Pakistani military academy, which is the West Point of Pakistan, where all the commissioned officers get trained. It is surprising that he was bold enough to find refuge so close to the military training college. There are a lot of people who are trying to create intimations that the military was perhaps involved. You know, if the military were involved they wouldn’t have kept him there; they would have kept him 100 miles away from that place. It’s possible that the military was looking for bin Laden everywhere, and that’s the last place they would have bothered to look.’
Excellent stuff thanks for posting.
I don't believe Bush stopped looking for him. I think he was trying to save face because the trail went cold. I think he was also trying to make a larger point that it's a war on terror, not just a war on one man.
The media does report corruption but it is just never as big a story as l would like it to be. Pick any just about aspect of the federal government activities and I can find some news article pointing at corruption in that program. Even school lunch programs have a corruption angle.
Esotericist covered Mark Twain. Why do just believe the government before they provide proof? Can the US government can get away with telling easily disproved lies? How do you know the US government can't get away with telling easily disproved lies?
I do believe this raid was probably real but on the other hand SAM makes a good point that had Bin Laden been alive in recent years what could have stopped a guy like him from making video tapes and seeking attention?
If confirmation from nongovernmental sources of the genuineness of this raid does materialize over this next year then I will conclude that this raid was in all probability a hoax. If the wife speaks publicly confirming the raid and if media or bloggers not loyal to the West's alleged war on terror can confirm the identity of the alleged wife then I will conclude that the Bin Laden killing has a high enough probability of being real to consider it a fact and not worth disputing.
I don't like people simply taking the US government's word as to what are facts because doing so is a threat to democracy and a threat to human progress.
Progress and democracy need skepticism not loyalty and trust. Democracy has not worked without checks and balances. Checks and balances presumes distrust is required.
Science is based on distrust. Things must be experimentally proven with experiments that can e replicated and are published in peer reviewed journals. If scientists don't feel to just trust each other and take each others word for what is scientific truth then why should we trust government? We should have just continued believing the earth is flat because the pope said it was flat.
Open government is national security. The greatest political danger to the people is their own governments not foreign governments or terrorists. Trust is stupid and wrong.
Do you want to do your own DNA check? How would you verify a picture of Bin Laden's corpse? Even if the government supplied evidence, wouldn't you just believe that the evidence was fake?
My preference whenever we want the truth is to have a grand jury comprised of random citizens investigate.
DNA evidence is very problematic evidence when only one side gets to know where the DNA came from.
If your sister was picked up and charged with a murder by a untrustworthy government, which claimed to have matched her DNA to DNA on the knife handle of the knife that was still stuck in the victim, but the untrustworthy government provided no evidence to back up the their claims to have even done a DNA test would you simply believe that government.
I 75% believe that the government killed Bin Laden but by the end of this year if no more evidence is produced than what I am aware of now then I will drop the probability that the government killed Bin Laden in this raid to 35%.
A photo of Bin Laden could be argued over by "experts". A clearly fake photo would damage the government's position. These governments think they should be trusted. I would prefer that Pakistan let conspiracy theorists send investigators to the compound now before evidence gets destroyed.
Last edited: