Osama bin Laden killed by US forces in Pakistan

[pk]

Seems to be quite a popular theory amongst some cynical (Irish) Republicans who were trying to reason why the 'dumping at sea'/no body scenario.

LOB DE MAN IN SEA happens to be an anagram of OSAMA BIN LADEN

I think you may well be onto something here.

 

[Spymaster]

has there been any discussion on the theory that the Yanks did not kill OBL, but rather that they HAVE him?

I brought it up a few days ago.

We can be pretty certain that OBL is no longer at liberty, due to the the certainty of US statements, and the fact that if he were to appear somewhere, the fallout for the yanks would be catastrophic.

Ergo, they are certain that he's dead or captured, and won't be making any credible impromptu appearances. So he's either dead, or the current object of various experiments that we'll likely never get to hear about.

I hope for the latter but suspect the former.

 

[audiotech]

'Various experiments'? Don't tell me, 'Roswell', 'Area 51' type experiments.

 

[pk]

'Various experiments'? Don't tell me, 'Roswell', 'Area 51' type experiments.

Latest picture of Osama from Madison County secret military base. My word. What have they done to him?

 

[Idris2002]

 

[audiotech]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal

Funny that, after Pakistan acted all upset about the raid.

They acted upset for the internal audience. That's standard practice world-wide.

 

[dilute micro]

Probably a democrat campaign poster.

Spiderman in his brownshirt uniform minus the leather strap across the shoulder.

 

[Streathamite]

Yea anyone would think so. But the Pakis don't seem to now who's country it is....The elected civilian gov? The military? The ISI? The Taliban? They seriously expected the US to tell them about the raid in advance? Preposterous.

For the love of God, DO NOT - EVER! - use the word 'Paki' on a UK-based, UK-centred BB. I realise that you - as an American - do not realise the baggage the word carries around, but please take it from me that the word has unequivocally racist connotations over here, and, as such, is viewed as highly offensive by, well, just about everyone.
I didn't report the post, because I don't think you have any racist intent (for the reason given above), but others would have

 

[Streathamite]

I'm sorry to bounce back here, but I've been thinking a lot about what Dylans' posts on this thread, and I've come to the conclusion he actually has a massively valid point. It's not one that's going to ever find favour in these current, exceptional circumstances, but that doesn't make it any less right.

Firstly, i weep no tears for OBL. Whilst i'm with MLK about not celebrating any man's death, the world IS a better place for his departure from it (and the same goes for all murderers, whatever their motivation). However, at the time of his death, his significance was more symbolic than real; the Arab Spring underlined the stark truth that the vast majority of both arabs and muslims totally rejected al-Q's credo.

And all the power and potency al-Q has ever had is as nothing to the power the USG has, and I mean REAL power, as in the power to vastly affect our lives. ALL major govts have such power, but USG especially so. OBL was the flea to their elephant.

So the key question is: what should we accept governments are entitled to do in their citizens names? what should we all tolerate them doing? - and are there one off exceptions?

International Law has been derided here, but it is vitally important; The Rule of law is the ONLY framework that separates tyrannies from govt's, and societies, and States that proclaim to stand for something better - y'know, democracy, govt accountability and transparency, human rights, freedom, all those quaint notions that nevertheless we ALL have a vested interests in fighting to see upheld: They are the citizen's bulwark against governmental excess and misconduct, the reins and the brakes.

I don't think anyone now disputes that International law has been thoroughly trashed here; ripped to shred and trampled into subcontinental dust. The key point is whether this is an occasion when it is in the common interest to politely look the other way, and say "Ok, just this once..."

I don't think it is. It is because USG has such awesome power that everyone should be MORE vigilant in striving to hold them to account, and to the strictest standards for the simple reason that it is in the nature of the governmental beast to get away with as much as they can, and the more you let 'em do so, the further they will go.
This WAS an extra-judicial assassination.

And it is precisely because it is someone as, well, evil and barbaric as OBL that we should be extra keen on the rulebook; the true measure of justice and right is the quality of justice meted out to those who seem least deserving of it. f'rinstance, few people would be that upset if Peter Sutclifffe was topped in his sleep by another inmate, but to me it would be no less a major scandal.

In short, I find the issue of what USG gets away with - ditto all govts, including the wankers currently i/c the UK - to be far more alarming than the death of a terrorist.

 

[dylans]

Absolutely but also because the killing of Bin Laden wasn't a one off exception. It is just one more example of US hypocritically trampling over every democratic principle in the book. The past ten years has seen the US tear up the book on constitutionality, judicial process, sovereignty of nation, international humanitarian law on every level. Rendition, wars of aggression, illegal regime change, torture, assassination, detention without trial, abuse of prisoners, the list goes on and on.

I'm not a great fan of Michael Moore but sometimes he has a good turn of phrase

We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama. You had our number. You somehow knew we would eagerly give up our constitutional rights and become more like the authoritarian state you dreamed of. You knew we would exhaust our military and willingly go into more debt in eight years than we had accumulated in the previous 200 years combined.

Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War. Only, when the killing stopped, the trained killer, our "Frankenstein," couldn't. The monster, you, would soon turn on us.

If we really want to send bin Laden not just to his death, but also to his defeat, may I suggest that we reverse all of that right now. End the wars, bring the troops home, make the rich pay for this mess, and restore our privacy and due process rights that used to distinguish us from any other country. Right now, our democracy looks like Singapore and our economy has gone desperately Greek.

I know it will be hard to turn the clock back to before 9/11 when all we had to worry about were candidates stealing elections. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around "homeland security" and the terror wars. These war profiteers will not want to give up their booty so easily. They will want to keep us in fear so they can keep raking it in. We will have to stop them. But first we must stop believing them.

Hideki Tojo killed my uncle and millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and a hundred thousand other Americans. He was the head of Japan, the Emperor's henchman, the man who was the architect of Pearl Harbor. When the American soldiers went to arrest him, he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the chest. The soldiers immediately worked on stopping his bleeding and rushed him to an army hospital where he was saved by our army doctors. He then had his day in court. It was a powerful exercise for the world to see. And on December 23, 1948, after he was found guilty, we hanged him. A killer of millions was forced to stand trial. A killer of 4,000 (counting the African embassies and USS Cole bombings) got double-tapped in his pajamas. Assuming it was possible to take him alive, I think his victims, the future, and the restoration of the American Way deserved better. That's all I'm saying.

Good riddance Osama.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/some-final-thoughts-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden

 

[London_Calling]

I think it’s worth bearing in mind so-called ‘international law’ is often merely what the 5 permanent members of the UNSC say it is. This is not democratic law, it’s not actually ‘law’ in any commonly used sense of the word. It is, however, imperial rule.

Another potential source of international ‘law’ is the International Criminal Court – but the USA isn’t party to that and so not subject to it. In fact, the USA has sought to undermine the ICC.

The USA also does not recognise international Human Rights doctrine/s.


This is no great surprise - why would any empire of the day agree to have its hands tied by others, makes absolutely no sense in imperial terms. The British Empire certainly wouldn't have stood for it.

 

[dylans]

I think it’s worth bearing in mind so-called ‘international law’ is often merely what the 5 permanent members of the UNSC say it is. This is not democratic law, it’s not actually ‘law’ in any commonly used sense of the word. It is, however, imperial rule.

Another potential source of international ‘law’ is the International Criminal Court – but the USA isn’t party to that and so not subject to it. In fact, the USA has sought to undermine the ICC.

The USA also does not recognise international Human Rights doctrine/s.


This is no great surprise - why would any empire of the day agree to have its hands tied by others, makes absolutely no sense in imperial terms. The British Empire certainly wouldn't have stood for it.

It is a standard and a principle by which we can judge the actions of states. International humanitarian law is also a commonly accepted principle of combat most famously in the form of the Hague conventions and the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions All of which the US is a signatory to and all of which were explicitly ruled inapplicable by Bush after Sept 11. The US also ignored other principles to which it is a signatory such as the UN convention on torture. The fact that the powerful routinely ignore such conventions does not make them any less valid or less obligatory. Breaches of these conventions are war crimes which is why it is legitimate to call for the prosecution of Tony Blair and George Bush regardless of the practicality of achieving such prosecutions

 

[Streathamite]

I think it’s worth bearing in mind so-called ‘international law’ is often merely what the 5 permanent members of the UNSC say it is. This is not democratic law, it’s not actually ‘law’ in any commonly used sense of the word. It is, however, imperial rule.

Another potential source of international ‘law’ is the International Criminal Court – but the USA isn’t party to that and so not subject to it. In fact, the USA has sought to undermine the ICC.

The USA also does not recognise international Human Rights doctrine/s.


This is no great surprise - why would any empire of the day agree to have its hands tied by others, makes absolutely no sense in imperial terms. The British Empire certainly wouldn't have stood for it.

agreed, but that doesn't make it any less worth fighting for. in fac t, that is precisely why we should seek to hold govts to account, according to its' strictures

 

[London_Calling]

dylans - The term 'law' is a gross misnomer, and hugely dangerous as it creates complacency in the developed (liberal) world. You may as well hark back to the days of 'international policeman'.

When you get Kissinger or Bush or Blair (Nixon and Regan being dead) in a criminal court room get back to me.

 

[Streathamite]

Absolutely but also because the killing of Bin Laden wasn't a one off exception. It is just one more example of US hypocritically trampling over every democratic principle in the book. The past ten years has seen the US tear up the book on constitutionality, judicial process, sovereignty of nation, international humanitarian law on every level. Rendition, wars of aggression, illegal regime change, torture, assassination, detention without trial, abuse of prisoners, the list goes on and on.

I'm not a great fan of Michael Moore but sometimes he has a good turn of phrase

Of course OBl wasn't a one-off, I was merely focusing on the title of the thread.....

 

[dylans]

dylans - The term 'law' is a gross misnomer, and hugely dangerous as it creates complacency in the developed (liberal) world. You may as well hark back to the days of 'international policeman'.

When you get Kissinger or Bush or Blair (Nixon and Regan being dead) in a criminal court room get back to me.

The fact that states routinely violate such norms as international humanitarian law doesn't make them any less valid. On the contrary the existence of such principles, principles to which violators are often signatories, enables citizens to demand compliance. So for example the Israeli occupation of Palestine has been ruled illegal by numerous institutions concerned with international humanitarian law and the application of human rights.. The International court of Justice, the ICRC, The International Commission of Jurists, the UN General assembly and UN security council etc. The fact that Israel refuses to be bound by such universally accepted principles doesn't make those principles any less valid. On the contrary the existence of such principles allow critics of Israel to cite them as evidence of Israel's criminality and to fight for compliance. Hence the calls for the prosecution Netanyahu or Blair or Bush. Such calls would be impossible without the existence of such universal principles and the claim that Israel is guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity would be nothing more than a moral (as opposed to a legal) claim.

 

[London_Calling]

If they were "universal" they would be . . . universal.

Your "principles" apply to a few African nutters or East European mentals too stupid to hide behind the coat tails of the USA or another UNSC permanent member who would otherwise protect them.

Listen to yourself talk about "calls" for the prosecution of this guy and that guy - that sum ups the bullshit international 'law'.

 

[dylans]

If they were "universal" they would be . . . universal.

Your "principles" apply to a few African nutters or East European mentals too stupid to hide behind the coat tails of the USA or another UNSC permanent member who would otherwise protect them.

Listen to yourself talk about "calls" for the prosecution of this guy and that guy - that sum ups the bullshit international 'law'.

And what do you have as an alternative? Nothing. Just passive acceptance of atrocities. This shrugged dismissal of principles of human rights sounds really radical but in fact it's ultraleftist stupidity because if we were to follow your example we would have no basis on which to condemn western governments when they act in contravention of the very principles they claim to champion and with which they hold others to. It is precisely the hypocrisy of Western governments in proclaiming and then trampling on democratic principles that is the most glaring examples of injustice. We know Tony Blair will never stand trial. We know Israel will continue to steal Palestinian land. But the existence of principles of international humanitarian law such as the third and fourth Geneva Convention gives us a basis on which to point out the criminality of such actions and to point to the hypocrisy of the West in trampling over them.

A good example of this is the Goldstone report into Israel's military operation "Caste Lead". It was precisely the reference to international humanitarian law that allowed Goldstone to accuse Israel of crimes against humanity and war crimes. If you dismiss all aspects of international humanitarian law as irrelevant because it's principles are routinely ignored by the likes of Israel you have to dismiss the very powerful impact of that report. The fact is Israel hates that report and has gone to great lengths to refute it. To such an extent that they have pressured Goldstone into retracting part of it. OK its just a report and I am sure you will point out that it hasn't ended the occupation but nevertheless it has provided a powerful weapon for Palestinians to use against Israel and as a document is incredibly damaging to Israel's claims to have not committed atrocities in Gaza. If we followed your advice we would have no such legal reference with which to condemn actions such as Caste Lead.

 

[London_Calling]

My only point here - my difficulty - is with the use of terms like international “law” and “principles” and “universal” when what is actually practiced is ad hoc imperialism.

I'd also suggest that to think there will come a time when empire will be shamed into compliance is . . . a little too hopeful given the record of this empire.

 

[dylans]

My only point here - my difficulty - is with the use of terms like international “law” and “principles” and “universal” when what is actually practiced is ad hoc imperialism.

I'd also suggest that to think there will come a time when empire will be shamed into compliance is . . . a little too hopeful given the record of this empire.

It's not a question of shaming Western Governments. It's a case of building an opposition. My example of Palestine is a good one because citing examples of Israel's breach of principles of humanitarian law has proved to be a very effective weapon for building opposition to the occupation and for pointing to the blatant hypocrisy in Israel's claim to be "the only democracy in the middle East. "

 

[London_Calling]

there you go with that "principles" and "law" thing again.

 

[dylans]

there you go with that "principles" and "law" thing again.

So you think the Goldstone report is worthless then?

 

[trampie]

What a great victory for the USA , when I first heard about it you would have thought that it was up there with Agincourt, Waterloo, Rorkes Drift and D Day, the Americans apparently killed or murdered depending on your sense of justice a 54 year old unarmed man with kidney failure his son and a woman {the Americans are changing their story every hour} what a great victory.

Was the killing of Bin Laden murder in the conventional sense of the word ?, the evidence is pointing to a state sanctioned execution.
The President said that Laden was killed after a fire fight, not during, but after ?, in the Presidents own words.

Obviously they did not want him alive, they did not want a trial, otherwise Bin Laden would have ripped the Americans to shreads in an open court, the story going right back to Bin Laden fighting another imperialst nation the Russians with American help and progressing onto American forces in Muslim countries and Americas support of Israel against the Arabs.

The problem the imperialists have with freedom fighters/terrorists {one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist}is in recent years lots of them have had a just cause, im not talking about killing people here, but in lots of cases they had/have a genuine grievence, lots of people would say that the likes of Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Mandela, Gerry Adams and Bin Laden all had a just 'cause'.

Its beginning to look like that killing in this particular circumstance was not cricket, regardless of what Bin Laden did, we in the West should be better than that, the imperialist nations often dont get it why they are not liked, they talk about freedom and justice but dont always practise what they preach.

 

[Corax]

It would have been far less humane if he hadn't been killed.

Can you imagine the treatment he'd get if he was taken captive by the US?

 

[dilute micro]

otherwise Bin Laden would have ripped the Americans to shreads in an open court, the story going right back to Bin Laden fighting another imperialst nation the Russians with American help and progressing onto American forces in Muslim countries and Americas support of Israel against the Arabs.

yeah he'd have done just that and might have been able to walk after putting things into perspective

 

[rorymac]

So you think the Goldstone report is worthless then?

I think many of your posts are worthless as you like
You might as well write em on a dildo and watch yourself having a barclays in a mirror
It's quite sexy tbf if you have a doris watching

 

[audiotech]

Anyone remember what Saddam Hussain had to say at his trial? What about Slobodan Milošević? His trial lasted five years and all I remember of that is clips on the news of him being told to shut-up by the prosecutor. That trial ended without a verdict when he was found dead in his prison cell.

 

[rorymac]

Like you can put the dildo into your arse and watch the gal massaging her own arsehole in the mirror and licking her fingers and that .. fackin straight up it ! Instead of posting shite imo

 

[dilute micro]

who the hell names their kid Slobodan? That's who should be put on trial.

 

[2hats]

I see that they have 'apparently' found OBL's stash of pr0n:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-binladen-porn-idUSTRE74C4RK20110513

Presumably he was doing some homework so he'd be ready for the 72 virgins?