[Rod_Cloutier]

Obama's 60 minutes interview tonight about this clearly gives the impression that they had 'years of intellegence and evidence against Bin Laden'. The circus of a trial would not be in anyone's best interests.

Although I think this is a black swan event that has dangerous consequences, such as legitimizing executions without a trial. I can see that they had cause in this case.

What they need to do however is to disclose all the evidence gathered so it is plain this was not just a political execution, but the justice they claim was due. Some sort of hearing for the facts and actions of Bin Laden in a public forum, to given him a post-death trial is the only thing that will vindicate this action.

Without coming clean with the evidence in public, this should be perceived as a violation of basic human rights and a war crime.

[Ayoob]

Chomsky is one of the only political writers I can understand. He breaks it down so clearly and simply. If it's OK for me to do it to you, it's OK for you to do it to me.

The problem is, you can't be Rome AND be fair at the same time. You can't be Sparta AND be fair. The strong take from the weak, the weak lift ass and take it, and that's how it goes.

The US is Rome, extended. The Mexicans are the new slaves, the corporate fatcats are the new landowning rich, the Senate is powerless yet again, and the assassination of the Emperor (soon too come) (not that I'm advocating that or anything, just watching history rhyme with itself) with ever increasing frequency until the term of Emperor or Caesar lasts but a few days for the right patsy.

I think our descent will come much faster than Rome's though. I bet it's complete before my generation winks out of existence.

[drgoodword]

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.

GW and Obama both killed more innocents than OBL. GHWB killed 3000 in his Panama invasion alone.
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/no ... ion_to_os/

A brilliant essay by Chomsky...cuts right to the bone of this Orwellian circus. The rest of that quoted paragraph should be required reading in American high schools:

Uncontroversially, his [George W. Bush's] crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

Far too many Americans have been blinded by wounded patriotism, losing both their perspective and moral bearings.

[dohboi]

Agree or disagree with him as you will, Chomsky always has a clear, well researched, and bluntly stated position not to be lightly dismissed (unless you simply don't want your pet prejudices challenged).

[Keith_McClary]

What they need to do however is to disclose all the evidence gathered so it is plain this was not just a political execution, but the justice they claim was due. Some sort of hearing for the facts and actions of Bin Laden in a public forum, to given him a post-death trial is the only thing that will vindicate this action.

The fact that OBL did 9/11 is a sacred truth, like the facts about the Holocaust. There is not much chance of a credible hearing or any academic historical research on either.

[Rod_Cloutier]

The fact that OBL did 9/11 is a sacred truth, like the facts about the Holocaust.

Without evidence how is this 'sacred truth'?

The Nazi's had their 'sacred truth' about the sick, lame, homosexuals, and jews and what did they do about it. The holocaust was the result of believing lies without evidence.

[eastbay]

What they need to do however is to disclose all the evidence gathered so it is plain this was not just a political execution, but the justice they claim was due. Some sort of hearing for the facts and actions of Bin Laden in a public forum, to given him a post-death trial is the only thing that will vindicate this action.

The fact that OBL did 9/11 is a sacred truth, like the facts about the Holocaust. There is not much chance of a credible hearing or any academic historical research on either.

Oh man, I totally agree. Bravo! Well put.

At some point suggesting there is no evidence for OBL causing 911 and that he was murdered for being a mere vocal supporter of anti-American action will result in job loss, fines, divorce, jail time, academic isolation or worse.

[Pops]

The fact that OBL did 9/11 is a sacred truth, like the facts about the Holocaust. There is not much chance of a credible hearing or any academic historical research on either.

I just shake my head when I read this stuff, it's the perfect example of why I was a doomer before I ever heard of peak oil.

[Novus]

The fact that OBL did 9/11 is a sacred truth, like the facts about the Holocaust. There is not much chance of a credible hearing or any academic historical research on either.

Oh man, I totally agree. Bravo! Well put.

At some point suggesting there is no evidence for OBL causing 911 and that he was murdered for being a mere vocal supporter of anti-American action will result in job loss, fines, divorce, jail time, academic isolation or worse.

There is a sizable amount of the population that knows it is all a wink wink ok I got you covered "there is no spoon" type deal. It is in our best interest to make the empire look good while is still stands. As soon as the empire falls no one will believe in this story any more. Half the world outside of America already doesn't believe it.

[Sixstrings]

There is a sizable amount of the population that knows it is all a wink wink ok I got you covered "there is no spoon" type deal. It is in our best interest to make the empire look good while is still stands. As soon as the empire falls no one will believe in this story any more. Half the world outside of America already doesn't believe it.

The best thing the rest of the world could do, in the interest of world peace, is just not attack us in the first place.

Americans are traditionally a peaceful people. From our founding on up to WWII we wanted NOTHING to do with Europe and its interminable wars. But when attacked, Americans flip and we want war.. that's what happened with Pearl Harbor. And 9/11.. the mood in the country at the time was that By God we're goin' to war with SOMEBODY. Afghanistan wasn't much of a challenge in the initial stage, so everybody got behind the Iraq war even though the WMD thing made no sense. It didn't matter, we WANTED war and revenge and we were going to have it.

If the US is attacked again in a big way like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, then we will go to war again -- we'll find some country to go to war with, if not the perpetrator then someone who's been causing us trouble for years. That's just how it goes over here, if we're attacked like that then we must go to war.

Not saying it's morally right, just how it is.. although geopolitically one could argue it's wise to show strength after being attacked.. I think that's what Bush / Cheney meant by a "post-9/11" world, for a few years they didn't know how serious the threat of more terrorism might be. And so it was decided to stop playing nice guy and knock some heads around, you're either with us or against us.

[Plantagenet]

geopolitically one could argue it's wise to show strength after being attacked.. I think that's what Bush / Cheney meant by a "post-9/11" world, for a few years they didn't know how serious the threat of more terrorism might be. And so it was decided to stop playing nice guy and knock some heads around, you're either with us or against us.

I call that the "crazy mofo" strategy, as in "ain't nobody gonna mess with a crazy mofo".

The problem with that approach is that these poorly thought-out military interventions turn into multi-year quagmires.

Witness Afganistan, Iraq, then a surge into Iraq, then a surge into Afghanistan, and nowour newest intervention -- Libya.

[AdTheNad]

The best thing the rest of the world could do, in the interest of world peace, is just not attack us in the first place.

In the first place? OK, I'm pretty sure no one on here would even try and excuse bin Laden for the killing of thousands of civilians, but do you not think he was retaliating in the same way America has retaliated? He wanted revenge on America, and America wants revenge on Muslims wherever it can get them.

Americans and Jihadists are exactly the same, just fighting on a different team. One side has the most powerful military in the world, and the other has so little power it has decided the only way to take revenge is by targetting civilians. Both wants revenge on the other and doesn't care what it has to do to get it.

In the escalation that ensues everyone suffers apart from the MIC, and corrupt politicians who want an approvals boost.

And 9/11.. the mood in the country at the time was that By God we're goin' to war with SOMEBODY. Afghanistan wasn't much of a challenge in the initial stage, so everybody got behind the Iraq war even though the WMD thing made no sense. It didn't matter, we WANTED war and revenge and we were going to have it.

Don't you think this puts America squarely in the category of evil war mongers, not out for justice but revenge with no consideration for whoever else is effected? In the mean time causing worse atrocities than some of histories worst villains.

[radon]

The problem with that approach is that these poorly thought-out military interventions turn into multi-year quagmires.

Witness Afganistan, Iraq, then a surge into Iraq, then a surge into Afghanistan, and nowour newest intervention -- Libya.

Good old Pravda interviews a Russian Islamic leader, who puts forward an idea of an "organized chaos":

"...sometime in the fall we can expect a transfer of the "Arab street" to a strategic, for the States, region between Russia, Iran, China and the Afghan-Pakistan. And it is not so much about the oil, gas or uranium, but about the desire of Washington to organize a "controlled chaos" around the world. If serious unrest in the region starts, it cannot but affect the surrounding areas."
...
"Why is this happening? Would it be easier to control the world under the old scheme, through the obedient satellites?"

"Apparently, the times of large and small Samos for America are over. After all, what does this mean? You have to pay for the loyalty of your vassals, and pay big. The more countries - the more sponsorships. The sponsorship of Mubarak amounted to billions of dollars. And if earlier it was applicable, now, in a difficult situation in the States, there is a fundamental review of all previous strategies."
...
"Here, rather, we should talk about another, far more meaningful concept. The U.S. is now facing a threat of losing its position of the world hegemon. There is a fear that eventually it will cease to be the control center of the world empire with all the ensuing consequences. After all, in fact, the U.S. considered itself a sort of the Twelfth Rome, the center of civilization in the middle of the vast sea of ​​barbarians. To keep the former influence, they are implementing the concept of the "controlled chaos".

After all, what is the end result? The war of all against all where everyone is pulling each other's hair. In this stormy barbaric sea they see themselves as sort of a rock unaffected by waves, a sort of oasis of stability in the middle of turmoil, conflict and civil wars.

In fact, they remember the lessons of the First and Second World Wars in which America enriched and grew stronger. Until very late in the game the Americans did not engage in a decisive battle against Germany, preferring to profit from trading operations with weapons and food supplies. They entered the battle only in order to arrogate the victory obtained by somebody else's hands. All participants in the World Wars came out of them with a devastated economy while the U.S. economy, by contrast, grew rich on the supplies."

[Cloud9]

Organized chaos is an oxymoron. We gave them too much credit during the cold war. They give us too much credit now.

[Sixstrings]

OK, I'm pretty sure no one on here would even try and excuse bin Laden for the killing of thousands of civilians, but do you not think he was retaliating in the same way America has retaliated?

Not in the same way, no. Americans don't strap bombs on and blow themselves up along with everyone else in a nightclub. Americans don't hijack. What America does is make surgical strikes on military targets that are as exact as possible, and based on intel. Sometimes we do regime change, and the countries are always better off for it -- the Germans are better off now, so are the Japanese with the constitution we wrote for them, and in the long run I think Iraqis will be better off too.

Americans cause civilian deaths in the course of warfare, but we try to avoid it. We don't *set out* to target civilians as a terror strategy.. terrorism is a crime against humanity, while only a handful are physically hurt it robs liberty and peace of mind from millions.

Americans and Jihadists are exactly the same, just fighting on a different team.

How are we jihadists? Millions of muslims WANT to emigrate here. In America they're even free to wear a burka -- we don't tell people what to wear, just don't be naked. In France it's illegal for muslim women to wear head coverings.

We're not in the Middle East because of religion. We're over there to ensure control over oil.. this all goes back to the Cold War and the power struggle for resources between the West and the Soviets. Post Cold War, the new threat is just making sure the oil flows.

One side has the most powerful military in the world, and the other has so little power it has decided the only way to take revenge is by targetting civilians.

If they want revolution in their country then they can do that, just like Egypt did -- Ad, did the US stand in the way of the Egyptian revolution? Nope.

Don't you think this puts America squarely in the category of evil war mongers, not out for justice but revenge with no consideration for whoever else is effected? In the mean time causing worse atrocities than some of histories worst villains.

We're not "evil warmongers" because we don't annex nations. Iraq is a sovereign state now, free to screw us over if it likes. It might just do that, cozying up to Iran and selling their oil to the Chinese. But that's how it is, historically Americans are peculiar imperialists -- we take a country over and give it good government and then set it free. What kind of warmongering is that eh?

If you're looking for some evil, take a look north at your good friends the Chinese. But you won't do that because that hits too close to home. Look at what the Chinese do.. they crack down on Christians just for trying to hold Easter service. They invaded and ANNEXED their neighbor Tibet. In Tibet, having a picture of the Dalai Lama or even saying his name can get you beat up, tortured, thrown in a dungeon.

Ad, you and the other Australians I hear on this forum would have a lot more moral force to your arguments if you ever said anything about the Chinese. The fact that you don't makes your anti-Americanism sound a lot like what comes out of Russia -- self-interested propaganda.

[Oneaboveall]

You know I'm not really in agreement with US policies, but I've noticed that there is a tendency among foreign posters to do the following...

Step 1: Self-righteously point at what the US is doing and turn up their noses.

Step 2: Completely ignore the stuff their governments do.

[AdTheNad]

Sometimes we do regime change, and the countries are always better off for it -- the Germans are better off now, so are the Japanese with the constitution we wrote for them, and in the long run I think Iraqis will be better off too.

What about all the other countries where democracies were toppled and dictators were put in place? Are they better off now too? I don't suppose that could stir up any hatred towards America in such a way to breed terrorism? Like Iran, Guatemala, you know what, I was going to go through the whole list but you should probably just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponso ... ime_change before you tell yourself that all the countries are now better off. Just because you don't know of all the shady stuff the CIA has done, doesn't mean the countries it has happened in are better off. And for what? So you can help install the best democracy money can buy? That's not democracy!

If they want revolution in their country then they can do that, just like Egypt did -- Ad, did the US stand in the way of the Egyptian revolution? Nope.

America picks and chooses which revolutions they will help and which they will hinder. I seem to remember America sitting on the side lines until they thought they knew which way it would go and then chime in. If they thought it would go Mubarak's way I'm pretty sure they would have offered more weapons for sale and certain things would have been dropped from the MSM. And lets not forget which countries the weapons come from that are used to suppress the people where revolutions are being held down.

We're not "evil warmongers" because we don't annex nations. Iraq is a sovereign state now, free to screw us over if it likes. It might just do that, cozying up to Iran and selling their oil to the Chinese. But that's how it is, historically Americans are peculiar imperialists -- we take a country over and give it good government and then set it free. What kind of warmongering is that eh?

The kind where your defence contractors have already been paid? Additionally America's financial position is VERY different from 10 years ago when Iraq started. If someone told you the Chinese would be outbidding America for oil 10 years ago most people would laugh at them. Many people still would now. And no, you don't give it good government. You would normally give it a dictatorship in the past, there was just too many people watching Iraq to get away with it, so you've settled for the unlimited campaign contributions method instead. I wonder how that will turn out for the people who avoided the bombs.

If you're looking for some evil, take a look north at your good friends the Chinese.

That's just a strawman. I have no love for the Chinese and if you start up a thread about them I would probably join in. This thread is about OBL, so clearly it's most relevant to talk about the loudest voices and reactions to him.

How are we jihadists?

This reply has gone on long enough to reply in the way I was going too, but ask yourself this:
How do you think the proud Americans would react if you didn't have the most powerful military in the world, and China decided to invade and start installing puppet dictators in some states, and bombing others? Would they bend over and take it, or would they try and get revenge the only way you can when you don't have a military? Try and be honest with yourself here, knowing how many times the phrase "glass parking lot" has been used by various people even if not on this site, and knowing it isn't always said in jest.

[Novus]

We're not "evil warmongers" because we don't annex nations.

Well there are about 2 million dead Indians who would disagree. Oh yeah Mexico might want California and Texas back. The annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii wasn't exactly all Kosher and rainbows either. Sixstrings you are a smart man. Don't let blind patriotism cause you to lose perspective of our own place in History.

[rangerone314]

Who says we have to choose between Osama bin Laden and GWB, in terms we can't be happy Osama is dead because GWB did worse?

I dislike GWB but Osama had he had GWB's level of power would have killed far more people than US presidents. Consider Osama with a few thousand nuclear weapons at his disposal.

GWB & other prez used the modern military with its massive firepower... a blunt tool usually even under good circumstances... for implementing a "continuation of politics by other means.” (Carl Von Clausewitz)

Dead Osama = Good Riddance of Bad Rubbish.

[FarQ3]

I probably wont win any friends here with what I'm posting.

So before you read the rest understand that I am not anti USA as there are so many fine US citizens that I would be very happy to call my friends. But as of the last 40 or so years, your government as well as mine (Australia) has done some truly despicably terrible things.

Us Aussies were in all of this with our friends the USA and Britain. And most of our populations believed what our governments told us ... about the WMD's that Saddam Hussain was hiding. We are good people, but we were severely misled and there were massive consequences for the average Iraqi, much moreso than for the Iraqi elite.

A lot of things occured before Iraq invaded Kuwait that were not what any fair minded person would say 'fair play' but that is another story.

In Iraq, during the gulf war conflict nearly every single water purification plant was destroyed or severely damaged. What followed was the WMD's scam. Severe sanctions were enforced on Iraq, denying Iraqi people crucial medical supplies, as well as equipment and chemicals required to repair and operate their water purification plants. Yes there were chemical weapons, but the Iraqi military and also weapons inspection teams set about destroying all of these. However US intelligence insisted there were more and so the sanction dragged on and on with no end of misery in sight for the Iraqi people. Weapons inspectors were sent here, there and everywhere searching and finding things at first but then as time went on, finding nothing. "Saddam moved the WMD's" said US intelligence .. "They're underground" said US intelligence ... "Now they're in trucks" said US intelligence ... and on and on and on it went.

During all of this time according to Amnesty International in excess of 500,000 Iraqi children beneath the age of 5yo died due to water bourne disesae & viruses. The USA, Britain, Australia & our other allies, we are all responsible at least in part for this. It was well reported, it was known to be happening and yet the sanctions were not lifted. Oil for food and medicine was a farce designed so that Iraq virtually gave away oil for very little return. And Iraq was not allowed chlorine, an absolutely crucial water treatment chemical because of the sanction's imposed upon it. You see chlorine can also be used to make crude chemical weapons and water purification plants would also benefit the Iraqi military as soldiers would be able to drink non-diseased water.

When asked on US television about the more than 500,000 child deaths Madeline Albrite stated that "this was worth achieving our objective"

Are more than 500,000 innocent children's lives worth Saddam Hussain's conviction?

If you saw the whole of the Osama Bin Laden tapes after 9/11 2001 you would have known that this fact alone was a huge force driving him. But in fact they didn't show the whole tapes in our media, only the parts that vested interests wanted us to see, you had to view on Al-Jazeera to see the whole video.

This is a history paper written by David Klien, California State University, Northridge.
Read it, you may remember some of these things.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

CNN, BBC & ABC don't tell all the truth, only the bits they're 'allowed' to tell you, but if you search government transcripts and the references given, you will find this paper is 100% correct.

Wars breed hatred, hatred breeds conviction, from conviction comes action, understand there are reasons why they hate us.