Goodbye Bin Laden

[BGD]

Perhaps some food for reflective thought from Noam Chomsky, the leading political commentator in the US, with regard to their killing of Bin Laden......for those whose minds are open enough to allow them to engage in such an activity:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law.

 

There now appears to have been no attempt at all to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition whatsoever; from only one guard.

 

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial.

I stress “suspects.”

 

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 post-killing White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

 

Nothing serious has been provided since.

There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession”, but they were simply comments; and that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He simply boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement by someone.

 

 

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad.

 

Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it.

The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

 

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. Uncontroversially, his 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.

 

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly.

No one seemed to notice that Bush was thus actually calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

 

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Source: "Guernica" (the US magazine of Arts and Politics. Noam Chomsky is Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.)

 

[CliveH]

malc d - 2011-05-09 4:39 PM

 

CliveH - 2011-05-09 3:26 PM

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Well said Antony - I worked out a long time ago that hell hath no fury like a leftie with moral myopia.

 

 

Goodness. Do you think BGD is a 'leftie' ?

 

;-)

 

It would not bother me if he was Malc!

 

But I disagree with Bruce on this issue. I respect his view tho'. And his right to say it.

 

My take on this is that when you are at war against the despicables that target civilians, you cannot apply the normal concepts of international "civility" to the perpetrators.

 

So we have the civil liberties people saying that Bin Ladens killing assassination call it what you want was illegal under international law.

 

Whereas I say that it is no different to an RAF or French pilot killing a Gaddaffi Libyan tank crew because they are targeting civilians. No different to our troops fighting. It is war. The fact that he was holed up in a building planning the next atrocity makes no difference.

 

If it did, then all gadaffis henchmen will have to do is to get out of their tanks to sip tea and instantly their deaths becomes a war crime.

 

This man was a monster. He was put down more humanely than those men and women in the twin towers - some of whom were forced to jump to their certain deaths to escape the flames.

 

I shall never forget the look on the firemen’s faces in that documentary film where as they were preparing to ascend the stairs of one of the Towers, they and us watching the film heard the sickening thud of bodies hitting the ground outside the building.

 

 

 

 

[oldlowie]

Noam Chomsky (?) (?) (?) Crazy name; crazy guy (!) (!) (!)

 

I bet he does his philosophising safely in the good 'ol US of A and not Afghanistan or Pakistan >:-)

 

Shouldn't the SEALS be sent after the apologists for terrorists next (?)

[francisgraham]

BGD, what an insulting and insufferable view you have: You say:

"Perhaps some food for reflective thought from Noam Chomsky, the leading political commentator in the US, with regard to their killing of Bin Laden......for those whose minds are open enough to allow them to engage in such an activity:- "

Noam Chomsky 'the' leading political commentator in the U.S.? What utter tripe! Calling Chomsky 'the leading commentator' is like saying that Nick Griffin is the 'leading social commentator on immigration.' Chomsky is an arch liberal, critical of anything that deviates from his left-wing ideology.

I don't know how long you spent trawling the web to find one person to back up your obvious anti-American diatribes but for every Noam Chomsky you will find three 'leading social commentators' who will tell you that this operation was legal, moral and justified.

And once again we have those with CliveH's wonderful phrase 'moral myopia' sitting in their armchairs second-guessing what faced the Navy Seal who chased the murderous thug Osama Bin Laden into his bedroom where he may well have had a ready-to-blow massive bomb or as he did have, an assault rifle and a pistol.

But to the real reason why I have used the phrase 'insulting and insufferable'. You state "...for those of you whose minds are open enough to engage in some reflective thought."

My mind is open enough, yours is the one that is firmly shut and has been welded so by what, in previous threads, you quite clearly show as an unreasonable hatred of anything American.

In one thread you spouted about how oil was the only driving force behind US military actions. I laid out for you a long list of US military and humanitarian military actions in countries that had no oil whatsoever. You went strangely quiet after that!

If you're going to come up with any convincing argument about this you need to do better than Noam Chomsky I'm afraid.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Glad to know you're still there Bruce, but I'm afraid the only reply you are likely to get is that the ends justify the means.

There is a clear desire here for retribution - more properly retributive justice - though the boundary between this and simple revenge is clouded in many posts.  I, and I suspect you, would be in favour of retributive justice - though many seem to have overlooked the omission of the justice bit!  Dead men tell no tales?

What many seem not to have been appreciated is that the real issue is not whether bin Laden was killed, or even whether that is a good thing, but whether it is acceptable for one state (in this case the most powerful state in the world) to send its troops into another state (technically an act of war), in this case a far less powerful state (which it claims as one of its allies), and there carry out summary executions.  IMO, this sends out a very undesirable message to other states, that such behaviour is OK.

One has to remember that those other states include some very nasty dictatorships with critcs, and/or opposition politicians, in exile - some in the UK.  Should some other state now follow this example, what would the US stance be?  Could they carry any authority and conviction if they then criticised such an intervention as wrong?  One law for the US, but another for the rest of the world?  Is this good?  Might it not appear, and be exploited by others as, hypocracy?  If the US is to assume the role of world policeman, must it not do so within the law?

But, for those whose world view is bin Laden bad, bin Laden dead, good riddance, the end, Noam Chomsky's musings (nor mine, nor yours :-)) will have nothing of value to add.  All else is just too complex.

After 9/11 Bush invaded Iraq, on the pretext that Iraq was implicated.  This was later subverted into Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  Both allegations, supported at the time at the highest level, were subsequently proved wrong.  No state has a monopoly on truth, none has flawless intelligence.  When that state is the US, because of its unique status, it needs to set the highest standards in its international dealings, not pull off dubious stunts to (apparently) boost the popularity of unpopular presidents.  It is this tendency to yeild to the temptation to play to the home audience, irrespective of impacts elsewhere, which makes me so uneasy about some of the things the US (and for that matter other countries: think Thatcher and Falklands) does.  It has nothing whatever to do with "liking" (whatever that is supposed to mean) the US.

[CliveH]

Brian - you say:-

 

"What many seem not to have been appreciated is that the real issue is not whether bin Laden was killed, or even whether that is a good thing, but whether it is acceptable for one state (in this case the most powerful state in the world) to send its troops into another state (technically an act of war), in this case a far less powerful state (which it claims as one of its allies), and there carry out summary executions. IMO, this sends out a very undesirable message to other states, that such behaviour is OK."

 

This ignores the reality that the war is not between States, it is a war declared on the West by a sub-sect of a religious order that considers all unbelievers as less than human and therefore killing them is of no consequence.

 

The fact that Pakistan now has to explain exactly how Bin Laden was living a stone’s throw from their national military academy and their secret service headquarters should make any sane person realise exactly why it was that the Americans kept their actions to themselves.

 

I do not see the killing of Bin Laden as retribution. I see it as justice.

 

Please tell me how you would deal with the hostage taking and likely deaths of many hostages if the US had taken Bin Laden alive and put him on trial. His despotic followers would have had a field day taking hostages left right and centre.

 

And THAT would have been retribution.

 

The killing of Bin Laden as the architect of mass murder is both just and totally justifiable.

 

[francisgraham]

Thank you Brian Kirby for reminding me of Thatcher's decision to retake the Falkland Islands.

Isn't it laughable that all the liberal lefties who are now moralising about the USA's 'invasion of foreign sovereign territory' are the same ones who opposed the retaking of the islands after Argentina invaded our 'sovereign foreign territory'. It didn't seem to matter to them then!

And of course that wasn't an incursion lasting a few hours to take out a mass murderer, but a full-scale invasion of Britain's 'sovereign territory' which was occupied by civilian sheep farmers!

Don't you just love their logic!

Anyway, evidence has now surfaced that suggests that, ten years ago, President Bush and Pakistan agreed that the latter would allow an incursion should the USA find Bin Laden or his senior lieutenants but that Pakistan would be allowed to protest for the sake of appeasing its own citizens.

The source of this news? The Daily Mail, the Telegraph? No, the good old Guardian, so loved of the moralising masses of the Left!

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

So perhaps it wasn't an illegal incursion into a sovereign foreign territory after all?

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2011-05-11 12:57 PM ................Please tell me how you would deal with the hostage taking and likely deaths of many hostages if the US had taken Bin Laden alive and put him on trial.

I agree it is a risk, and it would be a problem.  However, I am not convinced that risk, or the fear of it manifesting, should sway us from adhering to legal measures.  No comfort in this I'm afraid.

His despotic followers would have had a field day taking hostages left right and centre. And THAT would have been retribution.

However, that is supposition, not fact, although, as above, I agree it is a real risk.  However, IMO such acts would not be retribution, they would be revenge: not proportionate to the application of a judicial process.

The killing of Bin Laden as the architect of mass murder is both just and totally justifiable.

It is neither, IMO, because his killing was not sanctioned within a judicial process.  He had not even been tried, and found guilty, in absentia, so concepts of justice, other than of the "rough" kind, cannot enter into it.

[Barryd999]

jhorsf - 2011-05-10 10:52 AM

 

 

Donna. Is that really you in your Avatar? Cos if it is I agree with everything your saying. :-D

 

 

guess who :D

 

Ah, Me Light Saber's gone out now!

[Brian Kirby]

francisgraham - 2011-05-11 1:15 PM Thank you Brian Kirby for reminding me of Thatcher's decision to retake the Falkland Islands.  Isn't it laughable that all the liberal lefties who are now moralising about the USA's 'invasion of foreign sovereign territory' are the same ones who opposed the retaking of the islands after Argentina invaded our 'sovereign foreign territory'. It didn't seem to matter to them then!

And of course that wasn't an incursion lasting a few hours to take out a mass murderer, but a full-scale invasion of Britain's 'sovereign territory' which was occupied by civilian sheep farmers!

Don't you just love their logic!

Anyway, evidence has now surfaced that suggests that, ten years ago, President Bush and Pakistan agreed that the latter would allow an incursion should the USA find Bin Laden or his senior lieutenants but that Pakistan would be allowed to protest for the sake of appeasing its own citizens.

The source of this news? The Daily Mail, the Telegraph? No, the good old Guardian, so loved of the moralising masses of the Left!

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

So perhaps it wasn't an illegal incursion into a sovereign foreign territory after all?

Careful Francis, or you'll have Clive reminding you about ad hominem arguments!  :-)  You really must resist this temptation to erect these one dimensional cardboard cut out parodies of those you disagree with. 

The point I was making, that you seem to have missed, is that the re-taking of the Falkland Islands by Thatcher was a face-saver for her, that she could have avoided by paying better attention to events before Galtieri invaded.  There were other events, (South Georgia)and even television programmes broadcast, before the invasion, signalling the likelihood of an Argentinian grab.  The signs were all there, but were ignored because the desire was to save money and not to strengthen defences.  The ice patrol ship Endurance was withdrawn, the garrison reduced, and Galtieri thought the back door was being left open for him.  The dangers inherent in these acts were well publicised.  So, once the invasion took place the UK government was severely embarrased, and the re-taking became necessary.  Was I in favour.  Very firmly, yes.  My point, however, was about wisdom, and the falklands invasion was a consequence of foolishness, not wisdom.

So, since you seem to place me - on no more evidence than that you disagree with some of my views - on the "loony left" (which charge I totally reject), should I henceforth present you as a simple minded proto-facist (a.k.a. a member of the loony right), or just try to see you as someone with whom I don't always agree?

[antony1969]

Can we club together and get a super injunction on a couple of folk on here please , ya wouldnt want to be in the trenches with some of these guys would ya ?

[CliveH]

So let me get this straight Brian

 

You would be prepared to place more men women and children at potential risk (you agree that it is a risk) by way of hijacks, hostage taking etc. because you want to give a mass murderer the same "rights" as those his organisation would (based upon their previous actions) have murdered and have murdered ?

 

I just want to be absolutely sure of where you stand on this before I make a further comment

 

[francisgraham]

Brian Kirby - 2011-05-11 1:55 PM

francisgraham - 2011-05-11 1:15 PM Thank you Brian Kirby for reminding me of Thatcher's decision to retake the Falkland Islands.  Isn't it laughable that all the liberal lefties who are now moralising about the USA's 'invasion of foreign sovereign territory' are the same ones who opposed the retaking of the islands after Argentina invaded our 'sovereign foreign territory'. It didn't seem to matter to them then!

And of course that wasn't an incursion lasting a few hours to take out a mass murderer, but a full-scale invasion of Britain's 'sovereign territory' which was occupied by civilian sheep farmers!

Don't you just love their logic!

Anyway, evidence has now surfaced that suggests that, ten years ago, President Bush and Pakistan agreed that the latter would allow an incursion should the USA find Bin Laden or his senior lieutenants but that Pakistan would be allowed to protest for the sake of appeasing its own citizens.

The source of this news? The Daily Mail, the Telegraph? No, the good old Guardian, so loved of the moralising masses of the Left!

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

So perhaps it wasn't an illegal incursion into a sovereign foreign territory after all?

Careful Francis, or you'll have Clive reminding you about ad hominem arguments!  :-)  You really must resist this temptation to erect these one dimensional cardboard cut out parodies of those you disagree with. 

The point I was making, that you seem to have missed, is that the re-taking of the Falkland Islands by Thatcher was a face-saver for her, that she could have avoided by paying better attention to events before Galtieri invaded.  There were other events, (South Georgia)and even television programmes broadcast, before the invasion, signalling the likelihood of an Argentinian grab.  The signs were all there, but were ignored because the desire was to save money and not to strengthen defences.  The ice patrol ship Endurance was withdrawn, the garrison reduced, and Galtieri thought the back door was being left open for him.  The dangers inherent in these acts were well publicised.  So, once the invasion took place the UK government was severely embarrased, and the re-taking became necessary.  Was I in favour.  Very firmly, yes.  My point, however, was about wisdom, and the falklands invasion was a consequence of foolishness, not wisdom.

So, since you seem to place me - on no more evidence than that you disagree with some of my views - on the "loony left" (which charge I totally reject), should I henceforth present you as a simple minded proto-facist (a.k.a. a member of the loony right), or just try to see you as someone with whom I don't always agree?

Actually, my generalisation was aimed at the vast majority of those on the liberal left who bang on about the USA's invasion of a foreign sovereign territory, but when Galtieri invaded the Falklands there was no mention of Argentinian 'invading a sovereign foreign territory from these same people! Would you deny this hypothesis? However, I'm pleased to learn that you supported the retaking of the Falklands.

As for foolishness, isn't it wonderful to have such wisdom in hindsight! There was never an indication to Galtieri that we were happy for him to take the Falklands. In fact it was widely assumed that he would not, but as I said, we can all be right after the event!

Anyway, I've no intention of widening this debate to the Falklands. It was right to retake them and saved thousands of Argentine lives when Galtieri's dictatorship collapsed and democracy was restored. But no more from me on this subject.

Have you no comment on the Guardian's report about the agreement between the USA and Pakistan?  I would have thought that this rather blew a hole in your 'illegal invasion of sovereign foreign territory' which I think you have mentioned several times in this debate!

[Brian Kirby]

francisgraham - 2011-05-11 2:24 PM

..............................

Have you no comment on the Guardian's report about the agreement between the USA and Pakistan?  I would have thought that this rather blew a hole in your 'illegal invasion of sovereign foreign territory' which I think you have mentioned several times in this debate! 

Sorry, forgot that bit!  If the Grauniad report is accurate, yes it does, though as the agreement was hitherto apparently secret, I don't know how one could have known of it.  If there were such an agreement, the US was fully justified in entering Pakistani territory.  Easy to see why the Pakistani government might want to keep quiet about that under present circumstances!

Re the Falklands, I did not claim anyone gave "an indication to Galtieri that we were happy for him to take the Falklands", just that many, long before the actual invasion, drew attention to the dangers of the UK government's policies being so interpreted.  In the event, they were proved correct.

[CliveH]

So let me get this straight Brian

 

You would be prepared to place more men women and children at potential risk (you agree that it is a risk) by way of hijacks, hostage taking etc. because you want to give a mass murderer the same "rights" as those his organisation would (based upon their previous actions) have murdered and have murdered ?

 

I just want to be absolutely sure of where you stand on this before I make a further comment

 

 

 

[francisgraham]

Brian Kirby - 2011-05-11 3:04 PM

francisgraham - 2011-05-11 2:24 PM

..............................

Have you no comment on the Guardian's report about the agreement between the USA and Pakistan?  I would have thought that this rather blew a hole in your 'illegal invasion of sovereign foreign territory' which I think you have mentioned several times in this debate! 

Sorry, forgot that bit!  

Well you would, wouldn't you! (lol)  (lol) 

[malc d]

malc d - 2011-05-02 3:10 PM

 

I've not yet read or heard from anywhere that the U.S. raid went into Pakistan without permission.

 

I think this is one of those situations where we may not know all the 'facts' for years.

 

 

 

 

Well, looks like it may not take years after all

 

- it's only taken 10 days or so for this to come out.

 

 

 

;-)

[donna miller]

 

 

 

Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water..................... *-)

[donna miller]

Barryd999 - 2011-05-11 1:30 PM

 

Ah, Me Light Saber's gone out now!

 

 

 

.........

[jhorsf]

Donna the pic was a joke and I hoped you would see it that way as you keep telling us you have a good sense of humour

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2011-05-11 2:21 PM So let me get this straight Brian You would be prepared to place more men women and children at potential risk (you agree that it is a risk) by way of hijacks, hostage taking etc. because you want to give a mass murderer the same "rights" as those his organisation would (based upon their previous actions) have murdered and have murdered ? I just want to be absolutely sure of where you stand on this before I make a further comment

First, Al Quaeda did not cease operations while bin Laden was in hiding - it continued operating where, and when, it could.  I assume this will continue, but with increased activity in retaliation for his killing.  Whether more people would have been placed at risk had he been captured and tried, than will now be at risk from attacks in retaliation for his killing, is an open question.  As I said, there is a risk that may have been the case, but how could one ever know?  Whichever course had been adopted, the consequences of adopting the alternative course would be, and are, mere speculation.

My view is that, on balance, the risks from his arrest and trial were not sufficient to justify his summary execution.  I also think his summary execution likely to carry the greater risks in the long term.  However, there is much yet to learn about what considerations the US took into account before acting as it did.  In the absence of that knowledge, I continue to think capture and trial would have been preferable, because I think the US has severely damaged its influence and status in critical areas of the world (largely those from which the terrorism comes) by acting as it did.  If I'm right, that places us all at greater risk.

The death of this one man changes none of the fundamentals.  The issues that gave rise to Al Quaeda, and that attract people such as the London bombers to its cause, have not gone away because he is dead.  What is changed, is that the visible authority of, and public respect for, the world's one true super power, in exactly those countries where both are most needed, has been diminished.  I think that is the price of this action, and I don't think it a price worth paying.

However, as with all things, time will tell.  No-one will be happier than me if events prove me wrong.

[antony1969]

As I started this thread please may I be the one to lay it to rest . Agree to disagree I think or it will go on and on and on . The guys dead and am sure thats good enough for most of us . The next person to make a comment on this is the Biggest Silly Billy of all time after Tracker

[donna miller]

jhorsf - 2011-05-11 6:06 PM

 

Donna the pic was a joke and I hoped you would see it that way as you keep telling us you have a good sense of humour

 

 

Course I did, ya bugga. :D :D

 

 

 

p.s. This post is not eligable for the biggest silly billy title co i didn't mention bin laden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah crap !!!

[Guest peter]

donna miller - 2011-05-11 4:41 PM

 

 

 

 

Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water..................... *-)

Give Brian a hand here Donna, he's drowning, actually I think he's lost the plot, going by some of the lilly livered crap I've been reading on here. I don't believe it. (lol)

[donna miller]

peter - 2011-05-11 9:34 PM

 

donna miller - 2011-05-11 4:41 PM

 

 

 

 

Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water..................... *-)

Give Brian a hand here Donna, he's drowning, actually I think he's lost the plot, going by some of the lilly livered crap I've been reading on here. I don't believe it. (lol)

 

How could anyone resist such a request.