"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
So, now that Bin Laden is dead, who's the next bogeyman the government and media will tell us to be afraid of? :?:
i hope his first name isnt Dimitris
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
'The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation.
Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot to kill operation.
Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed...'
"Resistance does not require a firearm," said Carney.
And apprehension of an unarmed suspect does not require lethal force.
Anyway, like I pointed out before, they admit they went there with the intention to kill him.
And extra-judicial assassination is illegal under international law.
As is such an incursion crossing borders to a sovereign nation.
As you say, assassination was the goal. Working on 'the end justifies the means"?
The white house backtracked on a number of statements. But in the end, it's the first words, the first headlines that will be in people's heads, those that are meant to 'humiliate' Bin Laden (ie. you guys thought he was such a charismatic leader.. look at what he did..), eg. headlines such as 'Bin Laden died cowardly hiding himself behind a woman' (or similar).
For 10 years, Osama bin Laden filled a gap left by the Soviet Union. Who will be the baddie now?
Neoconservatives, 'terror journalists' and Osama bin Laden himself all had their own reasons to create a simple story of looming apocalypse
Adam Curtis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011
The horrific thing about Osama bin Laden was that he helped to kill thousands of innocent people throughout the world. But he was also in a strange way a godsend to the west. He simplified the world. When communism collapsed in 1989, the big story that had been hardwired into citizens of western countries – that of the global battle against a distant dark and evil force – came to an abrupt end. Understanding the world became much more complicated until, amid the confusion of a global economic crisis in 1998 and the hysterical spectacle of the Monica Lewinsky affair, Bin Laden emerged as the mastermind behind the bombings of embassies in east Africa.
President Clinton immediately seized on it. He fired off cruise missiles, they missed, and everyone accused Clinton of using Bin Laden to take the heat off himself. But if you look back at some of the pieces television reporters did that day in Washington, you can see something else too: the murky shape of an old story slowly re-emerging, like a wreck rising up from the sea.
Peter Till Illustration: Peter Till
Bin Laden and his ideological mentor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, talked about "the near enemy" and the "far enemy". But from 2001 onwards they became America's "far enemy". Neoconservative politicians, who had last tasted real power under President Reagan during the cold war, took the few known facts about Bin Laden and Zawahiri and fitted them to the template they knew so well: an evil enemy with sleeper cells and "tentacles" throughout the world, whose sole aim was the destruction of western civilisation. Al-Qaida became the new Soviet Union, and in the process Bin Laden became a demonic, terrifyingly powerful figure brooding in a cave while he controlled and directed the al-Qaida network throughout the world. In this way, a serious but manageable terrorist threat became grossly exaggerated.
Journalists, many of whom also yearned for the simplicity of the old days, grabbed at this: from the outset, the reporting of the Islamist terror threat was distorted to reflect this dominant simplified narrative. And Bin Laden grabbed at it too. As the journalists who actually met him report, he was brilliant at publicity. All three – the neoconservatives, the "terror journalists", and Bin Laden himself – effectively worked together to create a dramatically simple story of looming apocalypse. It wasn't in any way a conspiracy. Each of them had stumbled in their different ways on a simplified fantasy that fitted with their own needs.
The power of this simple story propelled history forward. It allowed the neocons – and their liberal interventionist allies – to set out to try to remake the world and spread democracy. It allowed revolutionary Islamism, which throughout the 1990s had been failing dramatically to get the Arab people to rise up and follow its vision, to regain its authority. And it helped to sell a lot of newspapers.
But because we, and our leaders, retreated into a Manichean fantasy, we understood the new complexities of the real world even less. Which meant that we completely ignored what was really going on in the Arab world.
As journalists and Predator drones searched for the different al-Qaida "brands" across the regions, and America propped up dictators who promised to fight the "terror network", a whole new generation emerged in the Middle East who wanted to get rid of the dictators. The revolutions that this led to came as a complete shock to the west. We have no idea, really, who the revolutionaries are or what, if any, ideologies are driving them. But it is becoming abundantly clear that they have nothing to do with "al-Qaida". Yet ironically they are achieving one of Bin Laden's main goals – to get rid of the "near enemy", dictators such as Hosni Mubarak.
One of the main functions of politicians – and journalists – is to simplify the world for us. But there comes a point when – however much they try – the bits of reality, the fragments of events, won't fit into the old frame.
The death of Bin Laden may be that point for the simplified story of goodies versus baddies. It was a story born in the US and Britain at the end of the second world war – the "good war". It then went deep into the western imagination during the cold war, was reawakened and has been held together over the last 10 years by the odd alliance of American and European politicians, journalists, "terror experts" and revolutionary Islamists all seeking to shore up their authority in a disillusioned age.
Barack Obama seems to be rejecting this story already. The Europeans still cling to it, though, with the return of "liberal interventionism" in Libya, but it is anxious and halfhearted.
But it is in Afghanistan that the story is really falling apart. We are beginning to realise that this simplification has led to completely unreal fantasies about who we are really fighting. Fantasies that only persist because they justify our presence there. For the fundamental problem with this simple story of good versus evil is that it does not permit a proper critical framework that allows you to properly judge not only those you are fighting, but also your allies.
America and the coalition invaded Afghanistan with the simple aim of destroying the terror camps and setting up a democracy that would allow the country to be ruled by good people. But in the ensuing decade they have been tricked, spun round and deceived by the complex web of vested interests there. And their inability to understand and deal with this has led to the rise of a state crippled by corruption in which it is impossible to know who the "good" people might be any longer.
Meanwhile President Harmid Karzai has immediately pointed out that Bin Laden's killing proves that the real terrorist threat is in Pakistan – and the fight against terror in his country is a fantasy. But we also know that much of what Karzai says may also be the fantasies he uses to justify the growing power of the small elite around him. And so Afghanistan becomes a hall of mirrors – except the one thing everyone agreed on was that Bin Laden wasn't there.
With Bin Laden's death maybe the spell is broken. It does feel that we are at the end of a way of looking at the world that makes no real sense any longer. But the big question is where will the next story come from? And who will be the next baddie? The truth is that the stories are always constructed by those who have the power. Maybe the next big story won't come from America. Or possibly the idea that America's power is declining is actually the new simplistic fantasy of our age.
So, now that Bin Laden is dead, who's the next bogeyman the government and media will tell us to be afraid of? :?:
Now, Marilyn Manson may become No1 public danger again...
good one Xrysa!!
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
The guy's name is "metsfan", probably from the NY area, and people are going get on him for being happy about Bin Laden being killed? Seriously? This has to be explained?
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that people like myself and metsfan are happy that the self confessed mass murderer/terrorist/scumbag is dead? Yeah there's still going to be terrorism, we get that. But there's one less "mastermind' behind it. This animal that hurt so many innocent lives won't kill anybody ever again. This is bad to you? This is a moral victory. A morale booster. And we'll celebrate. So if this annoys you, that sucks for you.
I love peace as much as the next guy, but seriously, all you people that are calling us out for being happy about it are hypocrites. I'd like to see you guys go hug a suicide bomber and see where that love gets you.
I found this quote on Time pretty cool: "Bin Laden had religious zeal that we don't have; America has a national spirit, and we don't have that either."
* A CHINESE ONLINE COMMENTATOR,
* writing on Weibo, China's most popular microblogging site, while watching Americans celebrate the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
Maybe you're lacking national spirit? We're not.
where did I "get on him" for being happy about osama being killed? He gave a thumbs down and "makes me sick" smiley to a beautiful quote by MLK, and I was questioning how he could do that.
your rant was so over the top inflammatory and made so many assumptions based on one question I asked I had trouble comprehending it.
earlier on in the thread I said "I have no issue with how he was killed". read before you judge.
EDIT: I had typed out this big thing but whatever dude. Keep judging us Americans and correcting our comprehension. Trying to get you guys to understand how we feel about Bin Laden taking well- deserved bullets to the head is no longer worth the effort. Since you're all so superior I"m sure you'll figure it out eventually.
See what I did there? I put in bold every generalization that you took so personally. I understand. People are defensive since they're always right. But since I can't respond to all the ridiculous responses on here, I chose yours because you got on metsfan for not agreeing with a quote. That just seemed petty to me. And I didn't even say one thing about that bullshit MLK quote you chastised the guy about! See, I'm not such a bad guy!
EDIT 2: seems I did bring up the quote. oops.
"Possibly" is in all caps (which is shouting right?) Multiple question marks. " WTF" stands for "What the fuck"?
"I didn't judge you" followed immediately by a judgement: "I was shocked that someone could dislike it, and I called you out..."
I don't know, seems a little hostile to me. Paul you may need to switch to Decaf!
Hmmm...
btw- great read Byrnzie
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
For 10 years, Osama bin Laden filled a gap left by the Soviet Union. Who will be the baddie now?
Neoconservatives, 'terror journalists' and Osama bin Laden himself all had their own reasons to create a simple story of looming apocalypse
Adam Curtis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011
...
Reading that article immediately put me in mind of an excellent 3-part BBC documentary from 2004 called "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear". And then the more I read, the more I recognised the language and certain turns of phrase. Turns out to have been written by the same guy.
It's long, but it's well worth taking the time and the effort to watch.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Just saw on the news footage of Pakistani men weeping over the death of their "martyr" Osama.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
What's the difference between that way of thinking and that of Osama bin Laden? Not much.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Just saw on the news footage of Pakistani men weeping over the death of their "martyr" Osama.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
I hope you're trying to be that ironic.
Call me crazy, but shouldn't the highly trained Navy Seals be able to incapacitate an unarmed man who may be resisting capture without blowing off a portion of his head?
Just saw on the news footage of Pakistani men weeping over the death of their "martyr" Osama.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
I hope you're trying to be that ironic.
Call me crazy, but shouldn't the highly trained Navy Seals be able to incapacitate an unarmed man who may be resisting capture without blowing off a portion of his head?
Yes.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Just saw on the news footage of Pakistani men weeping over the death of their "martyr" Osama.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
I hope you're trying to be that ironic.
Call me crazy, but shouldn't the highly trained Navy Seals be able to incapacitate an unarmed man who may be resisting capture without blowing off a portion of his head?
I think it's just a ploy to rile us all.... this type of comment is best ignored.
Soonforgotten - navy seal can incapacitate if they wish (as it would seem it's one of the guards that rushed not Bin Laden himself) but incapacitating was not their intention. A shot to the head to kill, another for good measure - to make sure.
"But last night the picture had changed. Mr Carney said bin Laden was unarmed and was fired upon after one of his guards attacked one of the US team.
“[The Seal] was rushed by one individual in the room and the resistance was constant from the moment they landed to the end of the operation,” "
al-Arabiya is now reporting that the al-Qaida leader's 12-year-old daughter, told Pakistani officials US forces captured her father alive before shooting him dead:The [Pakistani] official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.
The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.
There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden's sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.
While any account given by Bin Laden's family is likely to be treated with scepticism (especially coming via Pakistani security officials), the changing account given by the White House may lend this version of events more credence than it would otherwise have been granted.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
What's the difference between that way of thinking and that of Osama bin Laden? Not much.
Osama targeted innocent people.
These supporters support evil acts thus do not deserve to live.
Without getting into a debate on another subject, you support an individual who has been found guilty of crimes against humanity - against innocent people by a court, and thus punished. Does that mean you do not deserve to live? See.... goes all ways. They believe in a cause (rightly or wrongly), they mourn the death of one they see as a charismatic leader (again, rightly or wrongly). No difference.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
What's the difference between that way of thinking and that of Osama bin Laden? Not much.
Osama targeted innocent people.
These supporters support evil acts thus do not deserve to live.
The principles of radical Islamism that Osama bin Laden believed in held that Western lifestyles were corrupt and evil, and those who lived by them, rather than being innocent, were therefore also evil, and thus did not deserve to live.
Like I said, that sounds very similar to the line of thinking you are using.
It is massively over-simplified, completely unrealistic and ignores all the complexities and nuances of the context. Fact of the matter is this: the notions of good and evil are subjective. Don't doubt for a second that OBL believed that what he was doing was good, and was God's will. One man's evil is another man's good. In neither his case or yours can it be a legitimate justification for killing people.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
He was unarmed, he should've been captured and put on trial.
Now I agree with you.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
He was unarmed, he should've been captured and put on trial.
Now I agree with you.
I wonder if certain other individuals agree, the one's that criticized my views of not letting pedophiles the right to a fair trial.
I would criticise that view. Unless everybody, regardless of their crime, no exceptions whatsoever, is entitled to a fair trial, the legitimacy of the legal system is undermined.
And surely it makes much more sense to ensure that the worst offenders do get a fair trial. If they are guilty, a fair trial will convict them legitimately, and guarantee they get exactly the penalty they deserve for exactly what they did. Denying them a fair trial, on the other hand, is completely counter-intuitive and counter-productive, and removes any possibility of actual justice.
Look at it this way: Saddam Hussein did not get a fair trial, and was therefore able to denounce the court's decision as illegitimate, as biased and partisan, and make a case for himself as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. If he had a fair trial, it would still have found him guilty, but he would not have had the grounds to claim that victimisation. Surely that is far preferable?
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I think it's just a ploy to rile us all.... this type of comment is best ignored.
Soonforgotten - navy seal can incapacitate if they wish (as it would seem it's one of the guards that rushed not Bin Laden himself) but incapacitating was not their intention. A shot to the head to kill, another for good measure - to make sure.
"But last night the picture had changed. Mr Carney said bin Laden was unarmed and was fired upon after one of his guards attacked one of the US team.
“[The Seal] was rushed by one individual in the room and the resistance was constant from the moment they landed to the end of the operation,” "
al-Arabiya is now reporting that the al-Qaida leader's 12-year-old daughter, told Pakistani officials US forces captured her father alive before shooting him dead:The [Pakistani] official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.
The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.
There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden's sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.
While any account given by Bin Laden's family is likely to be treated with scepticism (especially coming via Pakistani security officials), the changing account given by the White House may lend this version of events more credence than it would otherwise have been granted.
Leave it to the US to botch what should have been a straightforward positive outcome. Way to go.
Leave it to the US to botch what should have been a straightforward positive outcome. Way to go.
I believe that, as far as the US are concerned, the operation went perfectly to plan (well.. except for the helicopter incident). They did what they set out to do - nothing botched on their side (contrary to a couple of other seal incursions in the past).
no need to make this conversation again...like we did with israelians commantos attacking those ships
Marines and special forces trained to DO what they been told...
the order was shoot to kill...and i fully understand that order...they will not let this murderer to play his game..a dead body cant speak...
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
fair trial ?????.......you mean like the one his victims got ? what kind of happy land bullshit is that ? :?
fair trial....... he had pleanty of time to turn his happy ass in and ask for a military trial but he did not, you guys....man what a bunch of malarky, bottom line is the piece of crap is DEAD! and you can scream and cry all you want and nothing will change the fact that he did the acts of a evil man and he died for them end of story.
Leave it to the US to botch what should have been a straightforward positive outcome. Way to go.
I believe that, as far as the US are concerned, the operation went perfectly to plan (well.. except for the helicopter incident). They did what they set out to do - nothing botched on their side (contrary to a couple of other seal incursions in the past).
Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't do what they intended. I'm saying that they were in a position to take the moral, ethical high road. They were in a position to be better than their target. Instead, vengeance and blood lust won out. Instead, those who dislike or hate the USA can point to this as further evidence of what is wrong about the USA. I have no doubt this was their plan. Their plan was simply wrong.
fair trial ?????.......you mean like the one his victims got ? what kind of happy land bullshit is that ? :?
fair trial....... he had pleanty of time to turn his happy ass in and ask for a military trial but he did not, you guys....man what a bunch of malarky, bottom line is the piece of crap is DEAD! and you can scream and cry all you want and nothing will change the fact that he did the acts of a evil man and he died for them end of story.
Godfather.
Me and you are on the same wavelength
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
fair trial ?????.......you mean like the one his victims got ? what kind of happy land bullshit is that ? :?
fair trial....... he had pleanty of time to turn his happy ass in and ask for a military trial but he did not, you guys....man what a bunch of malarky, bottom line is the piece of crap is DEAD! and you can scream and cry all you want and nothing will change the fact that he did the acts of a evil man and he died for them end of story.
Godfather.
No one is arguing bin Laden wasn't a horrible person who did evil deeds. The point is that any democratic goverment should be better than that. That is especially true of a country like the USA which wants to import it's brand of democracy elsewhere. Set your thrist for vengeance aside and ask yourself if killing an unarmed man, no matter what that man has done, is really good for the reputation of the USA. It is the reputation and behaviour of the USA that puts it's citizens at risk. I'm not saying that is fair, but it is the truth. The US was never an innocent target.
Comments
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Now, Marilyn Manson may become No1 public danger again...
The White House backtracks on Bin Laden
Mark Mardell - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
'The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation.
Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot to kill operation.
Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed...'
As is such an incursion crossing borders to a sovereign nation.
As you say, assassination was the goal. Working on 'the end justifies the means"?
The white house backtracked on a number of statements. But in the end, it's the first words, the first headlines that will be in people's heads, those that are meant to 'humiliate' Bin Laden (ie. you guys thought he was such a charismatic leader.. look at what he did..), eg. headlines such as 'Bin Laden died cowardly hiding himself behind a woman' (or similar).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ion-baddie
For 10 years, Osama bin Laden filled a gap left by the Soviet Union. Who will be the baddie now?
Neoconservatives, 'terror journalists' and Osama bin Laden himself all had their own reasons to create a simple story of looming apocalypse
Adam Curtis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011
The horrific thing about Osama bin Laden was that he helped to kill thousands of innocent people throughout the world. But he was also in a strange way a godsend to the west. He simplified the world. When communism collapsed in 1989, the big story that had been hardwired into citizens of western countries – that of the global battle against a distant dark and evil force – came to an abrupt end. Understanding the world became much more complicated until, amid the confusion of a global economic crisis in 1998 and the hysterical spectacle of the Monica Lewinsky affair, Bin Laden emerged as the mastermind behind the bombings of embassies in east Africa.
President Clinton immediately seized on it. He fired off cruise missiles, they missed, and everyone accused Clinton of using Bin Laden to take the heat off himself. But if you look back at some of the pieces television reporters did that day in Washington, you can see something else too: the murky shape of an old story slowly re-emerging, like a wreck rising up from the sea.
Peter Till Illustration: Peter Till
Bin Laden and his ideological mentor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, talked about "the near enemy" and the "far enemy". But from 2001 onwards they became America's "far enemy". Neoconservative politicians, who had last tasted real power under President Reagan during the cold war, took the few known facts about Bin Laden and Zawahiri and fitted them to the template they knew so well: an evil enemy with sleeper cells and "tentacles" throughout the world, whose sole aim was the destruction of western civilisation. Al-Qaida became the new Soviet Union, and in the process Bin Laden became a demonic, terrifyingly powerful figure brooding in a cave while he controlled and directed the al-Qaida network throughout the world. In this way, a serious but manageable terrorist threat became grossly exaggerated.
Journalists, many of whom also yearned for the simplicity of the old days, grabbed at this: from the outset, the reporting of the Islamist terror threat was distorted to reflect this dominant simplified narrative. And Bin Laden grabbed at it too. As the journalists who actually met him report, he was brilliant at publicity. All three – the neoconservatives, the "terror journalists", and Bin Laden himself – effectively worked together to create a dramatically simple story of looming apocalypse. It wasn't in any way a conspiracy. Each of them had stumbled in their different ways on a simplified fantasy that fitted with their own needs.
The power of this simple story propelled history forward. It allowed the neocons – and their liberal interventionist allies – to set out to try to remake the world and spread democracy. It allowed revolutionary Islamism, which throughout the 1990s had been failing dramatically to get the Arab people to rise up and follow its vision, to regain its authority. And it helped to sell a lot of newspapers.
But because we, and our leaders, retreated into a Manichean fantasy, we understood the new complexities of the real world even less. Which meant that we completely ignored what was really going on in the Arab world.
As journalists and Predator drones searched for the different al-Qaida "brands" across the regions, and America propped up dictators who promised to fight the "terror network", a whole new generation emerged in the Middle East who wanted to get rid of the dictators. The revolutions that this led to came as a complete shock to the west. We have no idea, really, who the revolutionaries are or what, if any, ideologies are driving them. But it is becoming abundantly clear that they have nothing to do with "al-Qaida". Yet ironically they are achieving one of Bin Laden's main goals – to get rid of the "near enemy", dictators such as Hosni Mubarak.
One of the main functions of politicians – and journalists – is to simplify the world for us. But there comes a point when – however much they try – the bits of reality, the fragments of events, won't fit into the old frame.
The death of Bin Laden may be that point for the simplified story of goodies versus baddies. It was a story born in the US and Britain at the end of the second world war – the "good war". It then went deep into the western imagination during the cold war, was reawakened and has been held together over the last 10 years by the odd alliance of American and European politicians, journalists, "terror experts" and revolutionary Islamists all seeking to shore up their authority in a disillusioned age.
Barack Obama seems to be rejecting this story already. The Europeans still cling to it, though, with the return of "liberal interventionism" in Libya, but it is anxious and halfhearted.
But it is in Afghanistan that the story is really falling apart. We are beginning to realise that this simplification has led to completely unreal fantasies about who we are really fighting. Fantasies that only persist because they justify our presence there. For the fundamental problem with this simple story of good versus evil is that it does not permit a proper critical framework that allows you to properly judge not only those you are fighting, but also your allies.
America and the coalition invaded Afghanistan with the simple aim of destroying the terror camps and setting up a democracy that would allow the country to be ruled by good people. But in the ensuing decade they have been tricked, spun round and deceived by the complex web of vested interests there. And their inability to understand and deal with this has led to the rise of a state crippled by corruption in which it is impossible to know who the "good" people might be any longer.
Meanwhile President Harmid Karzai has immediately pointed out that Bin Laden's killing proves that the real terrorist threat is in Pakistan – and the fight against terror in his country is a fantasy. But we also know that much of what Karzai says may also be the fantasies he uses to justify the growing power of the small elite around him. And so Afghanistan becomes a hall of mirrors – except the one thing everyone agreed on was that Bin Laden wasn't there.
With Bin Laden's death maybe the spell is broken. It does feel that we are at the end of a way of looking at the world that makes no real sense any longer. But the big question is where will the next story come from? And who will be the next baddie? The truth is that the stories are always constructed by those who have the power. Maybe the next big story won't come from America. Or possibly the idea that America's power is declining is actually the new simplistic fantasy of our age.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
btw- great read Byrnzie
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Reading that article immediately put me in mind of an excellent 3-part BBC documentary from 2004 called "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear". And then the more I read, the more I recognised the language and certain turns of phrase. Turns out to have been written by the same guy.
It's long, but it's well worth taking the time and the effort to watch.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lByw7kvS0&feature=fvst
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6LhnW4Oa8&NR=1
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HvzR8w1 ... re=related
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I hope you're trying to be that ironic.
Call me crazy, but shouldn't the highly trained Navy Seals be able to incapacitate an unarmed man who may be resisting capture without blowing off a portion of his head?
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
Osama targeted innocent people.
These supporters support evil acts thus do not deserve to live.
Yes.
I think it's just a ploy to rile us all.... this type of comment is best ignored.
Soonforgotten - navy seal can incapacitate if they wish (as it would seem it's one of the guards that rushed not Bin Laden himself) but incapacitating was not their intention. A shot to the head to kill, another for good measure - to make sure.
"But last night the picture had changed. Mr Carney said bin Laden was unarmed and was fired upon after one of his guards attacked one of the US team.
“[The Seal] was rushed by one individual in the room and the resistance was constant from the moment they landed to the end of the operation,” "
Yesterday, however, they were briefing that he was in fact shot twice in the head to ensure he was dead in what special forces describe as a “double tap”, with one of the shots hitting him side-on in the head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491108/Osama-bin-Laden-day-two-and-a-new-version-of-how-events-unfolded.html
Then again...
al-Arabiya is now reporting that the al-Qaida leader's 12-year-old daughter, told Pakistani officials US forces captured her father alive before shooting him dead:The [Pakistani] official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.
The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.
There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden's sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.
While any account given by Bin Laden's family is likely to be treated with scepticism (especially coming via Pakistani security officials), the changing account given by the White House may lend this version of events more credence than it would otherwise have been granted.
Without getting into a debate on another subject, you support an individual who has been found guilty of crimes against humanity - against innocent people by a court, and thus punished. Does that mean you do not deserve to live? See.... goes all ways. They believe in a cause (rightly or wrongly), they mourn the death of one they see as a charismatic leader (again, rightly or wrongly). No difference.
I will not say anymore on this.
The principles of radical Islamism that Osama bin Laden believed in held that Western lifestyles were corrupt and evil, and those who lived by them, rather than being innocent, were therefore also evil, and thus did not deserve to live.
Like I said, that sounds very similar to the line of thinking you are using.
It is massively over-simplified, completely unrealistic and ignores all the complexities and nuances of the context. Fact of the matter is this: the notions of good and evil are subjective. Don't doubt for a second that OBL believed that what he was doing was good, and was God's will. One man's evil is another man's good. In neither his case or yours can it be a legitimate justification for killing people.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Now I agree with you.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I wonder if certain other individuals agree, the one's that criticized my views of not letting pedophiles the right to a fair trial.
And surely it makes much more sense to ensure that the worst offenders do get a fair trial. If they are guilty, a fair trial will convict them legitimately, and guarantee they get exactly the penalty they deserve for exactly what they did. Denying them a fair trial, on the other hand, is completely counter-intuitive and counter-productive, and removes any possibility of actual justice.
Look at it this way: Saddam Hussein did not get a fair trial, and was therefore able to denounce the court's decision as illegitimate, as biased and partisan, and make a case for himself as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. If he had a fair trial, it would still have found him guilty, but he would not have had the grounds to claim that victimisation. Surely that is far preferable?
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Leave it to the US to botch what should have been a straightforward positive outcome. Way to go.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
I believe that, as far as the US are concerned, the operation went perfectly to plan (well.. except for the helicopter incident). They did what they set out to do - nothing botched on their side (contrary to a couple of other seal incursions in the past).
Marines and special forces trained to DO what they been told...
the order was shoot to kill...and i fully understand that order...they will not let this murderer to play his game..a dead body cant speak...
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
fair trial.......
Godfather.
Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't do what they intended. I'm saying that they were in a position to take the moral, ethical high road. They were in a position to be better than their target. Instead, vengeance and blood lust won out. Instead, those who dislike or hate the USA can point to this as further evidence of what is wrong about the USA. I have no doubt this was their plan. Their plan was simply wrong.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
Me and you are on the same wavelength
No one is arguing bin Laden wasn't a horrible person who did evil deeds. The point is that any democratic goverment should be better than that. That is especially true of a country like the USA which wants to import it's brand of democracy elsewhere. Set your thrist for vengeance aside and ask yourself if killing an unarmed man, no matter what that man has done, is really good for the reputation of the USA. It is the reputation and behaviour of the USA that puts it's citizens at risk. I'm not saying that is fair, but it is the truth. The US was never an innocent target.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>