I have to argue with your assertion that Obama is winding down the war on terror, “except for the clusterfuck situation at Gitmo.” The worst of that place—the torture—is now in the past. The legacy is still there, the problem of where to send the remaining detainees is still there, but I think stopping the torture is a huge step in turning that place from a clusterfuck to something much less unseemly.

With a public too scared (thanks, Rightwing media!) to allow “them” into their secure prisons, and a Congress too frightened to allow civilian trials for the detainees, it’s not as if Obama has a lot of room to do what he says he still wants to do. I blame cowards, not Obama.

My guess about the future, now that we’ve all agreed predicting the future is impossible:

Obama will do nothing to get out of Afghanistan until he’s re-elected, at least. Why give the GOP cut and run ammo until term 2 is a done deal? Then he can pretty much do what he wants.

Assuming getting out is what he wants.

Democrats: The party you can trust when it comes to national security.

As always.

Democrats: The party you can trust when it comes to national security.

Regarding this, what are the wars the Republicans have won?

Not Vietnam. Iraq I, I guess, although they didn’t finish the job and we had to go back.

They’d claim the Cold War.

The Civil War, but the Republicans regret winning that one.

That leaves Spanish-American, I guess? A war sold with lies and propaganda?

What am I overlooking?

I read that bin Laden was found in part based on a information obtained at Gitmo.  If that’s true I can see the narrative going one of two ways.  One, Obama makes the case that Gitmo fulfilled its purpose and it can be shut down now.  Two, Obama or others in his administration make the case that places like Gitmo totally work and we should keep it open.  I’m hoping for option #1, but I’ve been severely disappointed in Obama’s actions regarding terrorism and suspected terrorists thus far.

wingnuts screamed and bellyached that liberals who opposed going to war were cowards and pacifists who don’t want to do anything to stop Bin Laden, realistically most of us said that this was a situation better dealt with by having these kind of targeted raids that didn’t involve many civilians.  And we were right.  We didn’t need to go to war in Iraq, and we probably didn’t need to go to war in Afghanistan.

I don’t think this sort of operation, with this much precision, would have been possible if Bin Laden had been in a country run by people who were overtly supporting and protecting him, the way Taliban-controlled Afghanistan did.

Anybody else really, really want to listen to Rush Limbaugh today? No amount of OxyContin is going to make the fact that then Kenyan Usurper and not Commander Codpiece got bin Laden go away.

The reports I’m reading sound REALLY weird. Namely that they noticed a building that was way out of place, they did some basic investigation and found some things that were really weird about the building, that it had no communications going into it, and that it had a 3rd story terrace wall that was extremely tall, and probably they found they had no idea who lived there. (I didn’t read that exactly, but I’d assume they’d investigate that as well). On that circumstantial evidence, they thought a raid was in order. FWIW I think they’re right.

I haven’t heard anything about Gitmo information being involved.

I don’t think this sort of operation, with this much precision, would have been possible if Bin Laden had been in a country run by people who were overtly supporting and protecting him, the way Taliban-controlled Afghanistan did.

Um, as opposed to Pakistan, where he was hiding in a mansion in a resort town next to a military academy?

I bet all those shitheads who helped hide Eric Rudolph for all those years are un-ironically celebrating Bin Laden’s death.

I haven’t hearrd anything about Gitmo, either. I smell right wing ratfucking.

@8: The detainee info provided the identity of the courier who was the link to the people inside the compound.  The courier was the lynchpin.  That’s how it was always going to go down if it worked: the one link to the outside world was going to give OBL away.

Courier / Gitmo tie via the NYT and Washington Monthly: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_05/029218.php

I love the idea of Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night skewering Trump and thinking, “Just wait till tomorrow, when I’ll *really* have some news for you…”

irritation at being scolded by well-meaning folks for being glad

This, a million times this. While on the one hand I completely get the feeling of being a little disturbed by the macabre nature of the celebratory feelings being expressed over last night’s news, I’m also a little disturbed by the implication that it would have been better had absolutely nothing happened at all.

The precise details of yesterday afternoon’s extremely secretive mission are still coming in, and a ton of conclusions are being jumped to on all sides. There is a huge assumption that the SEAL team went in for the kill without “capture” even being treated as an option. Maybe, maybe not. The latest story that I’m hearing on the news is that a negotiation took place moments prior to the team going in guns blazing in which the opportunity to surrender was offered to OBL and company, and the offer was flatly refused. Is that true, could it be a lie? I don’t know. It could absolutely be a lie. But I’m not going to assume to know what took place inside that compound, because I was not there. And while I think it is perfectly fair to take the claim that OBL was offered the opportunity to surrender with a huge grain of salt, to flat-out assume that the claim is a lie without any specific evidence whatsoever to back up the assumption (the past crimes of our government do not constitute hard evidence of a coverup in the present situation) is a tactic all too often engaged in by the political right for me to be comfortable with.

Was Bin Laden given the chance to peacefully surrender? According to the official story now being given to us by those involved in the mission, yes he was. Could that claim be a complete fabrication designed to make the U.S. look more civilized than we actually are? Absolutely! Do I know whether the claim is true or false beyond the shadow of a doubt? Nope, and neither does anyone else out there aside from those directly involved in the mission.

Some of the details of what took place yesterday we will never know. The names of the American combatants involved in the firefight will probably never be publicly released, if for no other reason, for their own safety. The individual who actually pulled the trigger that put the bullet in the head of Osama bin Laden will go through life as an anonymous member of an anonymous team, and that’s probably for the best. It’s possible given the description of what took place in those 40 minutes that even the team involved doesn’t know which one of them specifically fired the bullet that brought to end the life of the second most hunted man in modern history.

Is the news a reason to celebrate? Not for me to say. But I will say of all of the human beings that could been killed in a firefight yesterday, there are probably about 6 billion whose deaths would sadden me less than the man whose life came to an end while 99.99999% of Americans were at home watching baseball, mowing their lawns, washing their cars, and enjoying time with friends and family.

I cannot bring myself to criticize anyone who was personally touched by the loss of a loved one 9 years, seven months, and twenty days ago experiencing some sense of closure upon the news of Osama bin Laden’s death yesterday. I can’t be mad at the firefighters who lost so many of their comrades shown driving by Church and Vesey with tears in their eyes when the world watched the president make the announcement late last night.

I’m not sure what bothers me more: those who seemed a little too celebratory over the news of Osama bin Laden’s death, or those who seem to wish nothing had happened to the man at all. Yes, “capture” would have been better, more just, and more humane than “kill”. But if it’s true that the option for “capture” was offered and declined or simply not possible in yesterday’s mission, “kill” was still a better outcome than nothing at all. In my opinion, anyway, FWIW. No amount of hand-wringing is gonna make Osama bin Laden any less dead.

My main hope, though I know it will almost certainly remain unfulfilled, is that with this news that we really do declare “Mission Accomplished” and get the fuck out of Afghanistan already.

I already have some wingnut FB friends who are bitching how Obama’s taking ‘too much credit’ for getting this done. It amazes me the hatred they have when the President does anything.

“We told you so.  We were right.  And I’m not going to let pointless scolding about “civility” stop me from saying so.  We were right.  Our preferred strategy got Bin Laden.”

Love it!

Now I get to spend the rest of the day saying “Mission Accmplished! For real!”.

Now I get to spend the rest of the day saying “Mission Accmplished! For real!”.

I do find the irony quite delicious that precisely eight years to the day after the Texas village idiot made a fool of himself in that codpiece on that aircraft carrier that the original universally agreed upon true mission of the so-called War on Terror - capturing or killing the man responsible for the brutal murder of 3,000 of our fellow citizens - was actually accomplished by his unjustly maligned successor.

I also find the coincidence a bit eerie that exactly 66 years after the world learned of the death of the most hunted man in modern history (Adolf Hitler), the world learned of the death of the second most hunted man in modern history.

Seebach, 9:

I don’t think this sort of operation, with this much precision, would have been possible if Bin Laden had been in a country run by people who were overtly supporting and protecting him, the way Taliban-controlled Afghanistan did.
Um, as opposed to Pakistan, where he was hiding in a mansion in a resort town next to a military academy?

Well ... yeah. Because once it became clear Bin Laden was in there, Pakistan couldn’t really say “yup, that’s him, and we really don’t have a problem with this” without drastically changing their relationship with the U.S.

Neil C., 16

I already have some wingnut FB friends who are bitching how Obama’s taking ‘too much credit’ for getting this done. It amazes me the hatred they have when the President does anything.

My girlfriend’s officemates are calling this a naked attempt by the President of the United States to be the center of attention, and mostly either think Bin Laden was killed years ago (and Bush kept it secret ... for some reason) or wasn’t really killed yesterday.

irritation at being scolded by well-meaning folks for being glad

I’m not unhappy at the death of Osama Bin Laden, who had made it his life’s mission to further his political goals through the employment of terror. In a sense, I’m even glad, now, because this means there’s one fewer individual out there plotting ways to destroy other people.

But I think open celebration is entirely unwarranted. There’s little here worth celebrating. The misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are likely to continue for some time yet. The economy is still trashed - and that, in part as the result of this trillion-dollar boondoggle. The civilian death toll for both wars is terrible.

America devolved to the point where there was actually a public *debate* about whether torture is justified - and, even more frighteningly, a lot of people concluded it is. The US government spent eight years under Bush II practically shitting all over the Constitution and even on basic human rights.

And now people, even here, are celebrating because Bin Laden is dead? Because it proves the Democrats were right all along? Yeah, big fucking deal! It doesn’t matter that you were right, because it’s too damned late to undo all the damage the rightists have caused under the guise of fighting terrorism.

That’s really gotta grind your gears.

And the award for batsh*t, completely-out-of-context trolling goes to…

Not “a lot of people,” Nil—a consensus majority.

@20: Most feminists don’t give a shit that the dead Jew on a stick was a dude, just like they don’t care that Santa Claus is a dude. Can you guess why?

Can we put up a billboard in Times Square that says we were right? Because seriously, we should. When you’re right—own it. Screw civility.

Wingnuts clearly think everyone is as stupid as they are. If W had captured & killed bin Laden, he would have plastered photos of his dead body all over the front of the White House. And to make sure that his wingnut friends could get their rocks off, he would have bombed the shit out of the area around where Bin Laden was holed up and killed dozens of civilians. W would never have executed an operation with the skill and precision that this was done with. It wouldn’t leave him with enough to brag about.

Michelle Bachmann is already calling for an end to “sharia inspired” laws/behavior in the U.S. So their next plan appears to be racheting up the war on terror by pretending like we should be scared to death of our Muslim neighbors. Wingnuts will never admit defeat.

Not “a lot of people,” Nil—a consensus majority.

Oh look! Hair splitting.

You know, let’s just call it “Too Fucking Many People” and split the difference.

Hi Tyler! Judging from your intelligence, wit, and ability to use logic, you must be the Tyler in my daughter’s class.* Hope you are doing better, I felt so awful last week when you were crying, holding your mom’s legs, asking her not to go to work. I hope you feel better today, little guy!

*Toddlers

@Comment #27: John D. Rocafella on 05/02 at 11:40 AM

2/10

You’re ruining their moment.  Atheists feel no guilt in rejoicing over the death of another, nor in using the death as a way to show how smart they are.  Let them have their fun.  They’re hedonists, after all.  Look up Ayn Rand.

Oh, shut the fuck up already. People like you and your immoral coreligionists are part of the reason why all this happened in the first place. I hope your tongue turns black and falls out of your face for all the lies you managed to pack into one short paragraph.

I was happy when Jerry Falwell died, I’m happy that bin Laden is dead now, and I’ll be happy when Dick Cheney drops dead. Sometimes death is a good thing.

Troll-feeding: there’s an informal policy about doing it, somewhere, no?

I love how many times recently that I’ve heard how Obama has been playing too much golf. It must scare a lot of white guys to know that the black guy probably has a better swing than they do. To the scared white men, there’s nothing more threatening than a competent Other.

@Nil, was trying to agree with and amplify, not pissing contest.  Sorry to be unclear. 

Also, I call Poe’s Law on Rockefeller and ask that we Not Feed The Trolls.

...was trying to agree with and amplify, not pissing contest.  Sorry to be unclear.

Sorry.

Generally speaking, “Killed in a firefight” ranks up there with “Shot while trying to escape” in my list of euphemisms for “We popped him in the back of the head”.

In this particular instance, I’m finding myself really not giving a shit whether it was true of not. Sort of how you can be against prison violence but not get upset about a serial killer getting shanked.

Your first paragraph perfectly captures the experience of last night. Watching the President speak, watching social media go haywire. Feeling elated at the fact that, after 10 years at large, Osama was finally found; that it was a black Democrat who gave the order; at watching Republicans shit themselves; at the huge boost this will give Obama’s chances in the next election…while simultaneously wondering if it’s ethical to be celebrate a man’s death, concluding that he was a bad enough person that I’m not obligated to feel sad, but still meditating on the wars and American imperialism…sympathizing with the people who concluded that it’s not ok to celebrate, but still being annoyed by their failure to comprehend black humor…not being quite ready for serious thoughts until the morning.

Btw I think Rocafella (lol…someone has a grandiose sense of self-importance and is imagining himself as a jackass tycoon) has managed to violate the stick rule after only two posts. I would say after one, but the second post clinches it.

I’m not celebrating exactly, but I’m not sad Bin Laden is dead. However, thinking about the steam coming out of George W’s and Cheney’s ears makes me very happy. In fact, if this was the thing that finally made Cheney’s heart give up for good, I wouldn’t be sad about that either.

Bin Laden? Screw him. Another religious fantasist without whom the world is a better place. That he was one of the people behind one of the worst days in my life, an event which contributed in part to probably the worst three years of my life, is only part of the equation. I have no compunction about speaking ill of the dead when they’ve been such utter arseholes in life.

Obama? Best response to the wingnuts was this photo.

Now the real issues: is this enough, finally, to convince Americans that Pakistan is not and never has been an ally against Islamism in general or the Taliban in regard to Afghanistan? What more evidence is needed that, as long as Pakistan is held in the thrall of an intelligence service and military that would give aid and shelter to America’s number 1 boogeyman, this military endeavour in its neighbour is hopeless?

Damned straight liberals were right on this: the wingnuts mocked Al Gore when he dared to suggest that terrorism should be looked at as a criminal and intel problem rather than a military one. And after the full-scale invasion of one country on a reasonable anti-Bin Laden pretext and the full-scale invasion and occupation of another on a fantasy-based one, Obama managed to do the job that Prince Bush, who spent thousands of American lives and billions in American treasure, never could—without the loss of one American life, with (apparently) little to no collateral damage, with a cost that’s probably well below the $1-billion mark, and with no public arse-kissing of the scumbags who run places like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Not that the Know-Nothings will ever understand that—even when it comes to their jingoism, their supposed respect for the truth, their blind demand for lower government spending, and their hatred of all furriners, even then they’re incapable of voting in their own self-interest or supporting a President who delivers.

How much does it bother feminists that Jesus was the *Son* of God, and that Jesus addressed God as “Father”?  That’s really gotta grind your gears.

Comment #20: John D. Rocafella

As an atheist, not at all, it’s *your* whack-a-doodle mythology.
Crap, I’m feeding the trolls.

Sorry.

Back on topic, I was telling my FB “friends” that were mocking the idea that OBL would get the supposed paradise of martyrs this encompasses my thoughts on religious promises of rewards in the afterlife.

It’s nice to read some sanity.  Forget about the righties - we know what they’re about.  If you want to see the most depraved, lowest, vilest part of the left, go read Digby’s comments section.  I love Digby but her commentors are foul, just foul.  The lowest most conspiracy-minded of the left.  You need a shower when you get out of there today.

Good post Amanda, and I also liked your tweets about this last night and this morning.

So…

Congress will now focus with laser-like precission on job creation now, right?

Please, for the love of god, don’t let broken, pathetic people who use occasions like this to try to draw attention to their sad, broken selves get their way.  When someone trolls, please ignore them and use that energy to bring my attention to it.  Thanks!

realistically most of us said that this was a situation better dealt with by having these kind of targeted raids that didn’t involve many civilians.  And we were right.  We didn’t need to go to war in Iraq, and we probably didn’t need to go to war in Afghanistan.

The unneccessary Iraq was aside, this isn’t a realistic assessment of the situation.  Many experts including Robert Fisk, the fellow who interviewed Bin Laden several times, are of the opinion that Pakistani ISI has been sheltering Bin Laden the whole time, and that they found him to be no longer useful and sold him out in exchange for more U.S. aid or concessions or a stonger hand in Kashmir.  So the idea that this could have been repeated with the Taliban firmly in control of Afghanistan is ludicrous.  You’ll also recall Musharaff’s memoirs, where he suggested that the U.S. used a carrot and stick strategy when securing Pakistan’s cooperation against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the “stick” being a threat that Pakistan was to be bombed back to the stone age. 

You’ll recall that Bin Laden and the bulk of Al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan as guests of the Taliban government.  You’ll also recall that the Taliban assassinated the leader of the Northern Alliance the day before the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that they knew of the operation in advance.  The Taliban refused to turn Bin Laden and al Qaeda over even when faced with a US invasion.  You’re surmising that without an overwhelming American response to the 9/11 attacks, the Pakistanis were just going to cooperate?  Or would they bet on the strong horse, knowing that even after 3000 American citizens are murdered in cold blood, the U.S. still won’t use it’s overwhelming military might.   

The two possible reactions to 9/11 were to exploit the situation to start conducting a bunch of fruitless wars that would only instigate more hatred towards the U.S. as we racked up civilian casualties, and to limit our response to police actions to nab important terrorist leaders while supporting democratic movements throughout the Middle East… our preferred strategy got Bin Laden.  Our preferred strategy is what is causing change in the Middle East.

Yep, so how’s that change in the middle east working out for the Syrians?  The Iranians?  The only reason change happened in Egypt is because it’s purchased by the United States to the tune of billions a year in foreign aid.  The reason there won’t be change in Syria or Iran is because those countries know Obama won’t invade, thus giving them a free hand in oppressing their peoples.

And then there’s the situation in Libya, and it’s kinda funny that you didn’t mention it, because the U.S. is busy bombing the crap out of the Libyan military, to help out your “autonomous” peoples. And again, it looked like Ghaddafi was going to give up power in exchange for exile and immunity, but once he saw that the U.S. resolve was limited to air power, he’s pressing on, betting that he can defeat the rebels while still being pounded by american planes, because American troops will never show up.  And he’s probably right.  The ability to effect changes depends largely on your ability to have leverage. 

Oh yeah, and the main reason that the Libyans rose up against Ghaddafi has nothing to do with American liberals fostering democratic change.  It’s because food prices are high, people are hungry, and they received a religious edict from an authoritative Islamic source telling them that Ghaddafi is an apostate (thus necessitating his murder.) 

Don’t crow about victory yet; I’m betting that Egypt’s military stays in charge of that country after things settle down, Syria and Iran crack down successfully on their populations, and countries with leverage against the U.S. like Bahrain also get a free hand.  And who knows what ends up happening with Libya.

I’m not crying that one less mass murderer is gone, but this is mostly symbolic. Al quaida is, kind of like the ELF, nothing more than a franchise under which a lot of non-hierarchical individual cells are loosely networked. In practice, I don’t think getting rid of Bin Laden did anything to their actual on the ground capabilities. He probably had very little direct influence on the actions of his supporters, except in a really general strategic way, possibly also theoretical influences and propaganda/morale.

This is why I find the celebrations unseemly. I don’t even think this is a significant blow against Al Quaida except maybe from a propaganda standpoint (and may I suggest that potentially making him a martyr is possibly worse than leaving him alive, and certainly worse than capture, in that case). So as a pragmatic person I don’t find a reason to celebrate unless your motivation was purely revenge rather than justice or the eradication of a threat.

I tried to listen to Rush just for shits and giggles on how he’d spin it: couldn’t make it five minutes when he was saying Obama deserves credit for continuing the Bush….*click*. Does that mean Bush gets credit for the shitstorm he left behind as well?

We responded to 9/11 by invading and occupying a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in a craven war profiteering scheme, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens.  So I’m supposed to celebrate and cheer now that we’ve finally done what we should have done in 2002?  Sorry, it all just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Because once it became clear Bin Laden was in there, Pakistan couldn’t really say “yup, that’s him, and we really don’t have a problem with this” without drastically changing their relationship with the U.S.

And so instead we carried on for 8 years with a diplomatic dumb-show that Pakistan was a “good friend” in the U.S.‘s campaign against violent Islamists. They added about as much value to that campaign as did our other “good friends,” the Saudis.

I’m glad that Obama decided to end that little charade with regard to Bin Laden.

Please, for the love of god, don’t let broken, pathetic people who use occasions like this to try to draw attention to their sad, broken selves get their way.

Awww, was Tyler trying to promote his little blog again? In the age of Faux News, who’d think that Tyler’s unique blend of ignorance, logical fallacies, religious fantasism and sexism wouldn’t be a draw all by itself?

Whoops, forgot, he also promotes himself as a liberal. There goes that coveted moron audience.

Great piece.  This is how this should have been handled from day one.  I for one am a bit icked out by the tree-climbing flag-wavers in front of the White House last night, because I suspect few if any of them are New Yorkers and had any direct connection to the attacks.  I don’t begrudge anyone in NYC some partying over this, but the White House crowd just reminded me of all the people in flyover country who put those yellow ribbon stickers on the backs of their SUVs and used the 9/11 attacks to claim anyone who didn’t support our imperialist wars was “against America.”  Some douchebag I went to high school with was apparently there in the front of the crowd and he’s exactly the sort of bloodthirsty rightwinger who gets a boner every time America uses firepower over brown people who aren’t christian.

I’m glad he’s dead and that we got the job done, finally, and it was good to see Obama nail it with the speech, but as someone who was nowhere near the targeted areas, I’m really unable to separate 9/11 from the disastrous actions that followed.  I use this time to just reflect on the horrors, from those caused by bin Laden’s and his cohorts to those caused by our own government.

“I was happy when Jerry Falwell died, I’m happy that bin Laden is dead now, and I’ll be happy when Dick Cheney drops dead. Sometimes death is a good thing.”

Agreed.  But I’m not going to dance around and shout out slogans and wave my hands in the air. 

A bad man met his end.  To that extent justice was served.  I would rather he had been caught alive, but I’ll shed no tears over him.

But what greatly tempers my feelings is realizing how many people, directly, or indirectly, have already died in the wake of 9/11.  Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of bin Laden’s actions and our unfortunate reaction to those actions.  And very likely many more will die before any of this is resolved.

We lost another big chunk of our innocence since 9/11.  We have openly admitted illegally torturing and illegally holding prisoners by suspending their Constitutional rights (“And I’d do it again!!!” sayeth the Shrub).  We so badly wanted to hurt people in our righteous rage that we made secret arrangements with countries we are virtually at war with (Syria?  Libya?) to outsource some of the torture we wanted to inflict.  These are not moral acts.

We have given up some of our Civil Rights (some of us too willingly) to pretend to ourselves we are “safe”.  We have acceded to having our phones tapped, to give up all pretense of privacy while travelling via airplane (those of us who cannot afford our own private jets), to having our First Amendment rights limited (“Free Speech Zones”?  Being arrested and/or harassed for wearing the “wrong” tee-shirt or displaying the “wrong” bumper sticker at a political event?).  Many Americans now believe it is treason to even disagree with the president (unless he is a Black man who they wish to believe is a usurper).  Civil Rights and Constitutional protections that took our ancestors centuries (and bloodshed) to create and protect we threw away at the drop of a hat.  Worst of all, we refuse to see how wrong all of this was and hold our leaders responsible for their actions.

We had a sick symbiotic relationship with bin Laden.  We represented everything he believed was wrong with the non-Islamic world, which gave him a tool to exploit young, idealistic Muslims for his own causes.  The powers that be needed a common enemy to distract us proles from their looting of America.  He gained prestige from our hatred, just as he also gave us someone we could hate without reserve and a convenient excuse to spend trillions and further line the pockets of the already affluent.

I wish this death was really meaningful in some way.  But I find it difficult to see how anything truly significant has been accomplished…

So I’m supposed to celebrate and cheer now that we’ve finally done what we should have done in 2002?

Yes. Among other things, this is a victory for common sense over idiocy, a victory for meritocracy over nepotism. The Augean stables aren’t cleaned out yet, but now we’re able to see part of the floor mosaic. Hopefully this win will also create leverage over the “Repubs Gone Wild” in the House—if they see the handwriting on the wall they may realize that the Big ‘O’ isn’t going away, and they best negotiate with him.

And a small reminder:

“Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

I was happy when Jerry Falwell died, I’m happy that bin Laden is dead now, and I’ll be happy when Dick Cheney drops dead. Sometimes death is a good thing.

Saw this purported quote pop up in a lot of places in the last 12 hours, seems appropriate…

‎“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

—Mark Twain

To which I say, “What Twain said!” (assuming he really said that).

Have the MGTOWs “reminded” us that this all was done solely by men yet?

Curious about the woman used as a “human shield.”  Was she really used or did she jump in?  It’s possible.

This is what I noticed after wars; there always seems to be some big liberal movement that happens afterwards so maybe after we win this one…..? Think about it; the roaring 20’s were from world war 1 and after world war 2 we had the later 60’s and 70’s movements! Perhaps we should subversily encourage war, make the Repubs take the blame for it and reap the benefoits for ourselves?

Best LOL image of day, maybe week: “Sorry it took so long to get you a copy of my birth certificate. I was too busy killing Osama Bin Laden.” Hehe. Image here, via Democratic Underground: http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg

And hey no typos, I managed no typos. How about that. Wasn’t so hard, though for Fox it was: http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/fox-news-just-cant-help-themselves

I’ve already had co-workers come to me and complain (because I’m the only one here who’s openly admitted voting for President Obama - apparently this makes me their complaint hotline) that burying bin Laden at sea was an incredibly stupid move.  Does anyone know why this is stupid?  Were they expecting his head on a pike, perhaps?  Were we supposed to bring the body to the U.S. and drag it behind horses in the streets?  What the hell else were they supposed to do with it?

because I suspect few if any of them are New Yorkers and had any direct connection to the attacks.

This fails to acknowledge the massive sense of unity Americans had with New Yorkers on and after 9/11. A continent away, Robin Williams went to give blood. Rednecks flew full size US flags from the back of their pickups till they blew to tatters. Apolitical guys I knew suddenly were wearing NYFD ball caps, and placing “All gave some. Some gave all” bumper stickers on the backs of their Volvos.

burying bin Laden at sea was an incredibly stupid move.

Show us the death certificate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is why I find the celebrations unseemly.

I don’t think “unseemly” is the word. “Pointless,” for all the reasons you mention. But there’s not much wrong with spitting on the grave of a complete arsehole—especially one whose actions have affected hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

may I suggest that potentially making him a martyr is possibly worse than leaving him alive, and certainly worse than capture, in that case

Martyrs are a dime-a-dozen with religious fantasists. Of course they’ll turn Bin Laden into one, but it’ll be balanced out by the symbolic humiliation visited on the AQ brand by Obama. Remember, these guys are all about symbols, and attacking a symbol is even cheaper then destroying one cell’s operational capabilities.

#49,
We killed the mastermind behind 9/11! THAT is significant! We havent won the war but its good we got this ratfuck!

at the huge boost this will give Obama’s chances in the next election…

My first gut feeling was similar on this point, but after a little more consideration, I really don’t think it will have much of an impact at all on next year’s election. Certainly it doesn’t hurt Obama’s chances in any way, but in November 2012, Americans will go to the polls and cast their votes based on their perception of our economic present and potential future, not on the fact that we finally got the guy behind 9/11.

I do think that the absolutely ridiculous claim that President Obama isn’t concerned about national security needs to die for once and for all now, but I don’t think what happened last night will have much of an impact one way or another on what happens when we vote 18 months from now.

#56,
Dragging behind horses seems good for me! Or pike-whichever one works. Perhaps we could all vote on it?

I’m a bit skeptical as to why they’d bury his body at sea. What did they do with Hitlers body? I think America wants to see the death images. We had to see those Saddam Hussein nappy grose pictures of him with matted hair all the time, even while we were eating so we should see the Bin Laden images too since thats better.

burying bin Laden at sea was an incredibly stupid move.

I’d agree, but if he hadn’t been Prince Bush wouldn’t have stopped whingeing that he deserved Bin Laden’s head on a pike, to be displayed next to Saddam’s pistol and the “Mission Accomplished” banner at his Presidential “lie-berry.” Islamists aren’t the only fantasists obsessed with symbols.

And seriously, after that birth certificate nonsense, I’m sure that the Obama administration made sure to document everything about this particular death in writing, photos, HD video, fingerprints, and DNA samples before adding him to other sludge poured into the sea over the past year. Not that it’ll matter to the wingnuts.

I jumped right past all the jumbled thoughts you described and landed right at “don’t care.”

I originally had a long rant about why, but I think you all know what it would have been about.  In short, I don’t think that Bin Laden being dead is going to change anything in any real way, so I find it hard to feel happy he’s out of the picture.

I’m trying not to give anyone a hard time about it (hence subtracting the lecture), but forgive me if I think dancing in the streets is a bit premature and overblown.

Dragging behind horses seems good for me! Or pike-whichever one works. Perhaps we could all vote on it?

Hey, if a guy with my name is saying that Triumphal Parades are so over, it might be time for Americans to consider it.

I think America wants to see the death images.

Maybe Obama will have a bit of fun with this like he did with the birth certificate—wait for the GOP candidates to spend a few months pandering to the inevitable Teabagger conspiracy theories about Elvis Bin Laden, and then spring the pics and videos on them at a strategic moment. Even better: Obama saying “Burial at sea? Kidding! Here’s old beardo’s body for your perusal!”

That would be awesome in so many ways.

We drink water from the sea. I dont want Osama cooties! I mean, seriously couldnt they have just buried him normally in some dirt or at least cremated his body and dump it over the land in Afghanistan rather than dump it in our drinking water?

“What did they do with Hitlers body?”

The Soviets got to the bunker first, found the partially burnt bodies of Adolf and Eva, took a few pictures, took the physical evidence, verified to the best of their ability it really was Adolf (DNA analysis not yet available at the time), hung on to some it it for a while, thought better of it and got rid of the physical evidence.  And then didn’t admit they knew anything about it for 40-years.  There was no dragging of his corpse through the street.

OTOH, if Bush Jr had been CinC back then, there would probably be a private picture of him urinating on Hitler’s partially burnt corpse as a treasured keepsake…

I’ve already had co-workers come to me and complain (because I’m the only one here who’s openly admitted voting for President Obama - apparently this makes me their complaint hotline) that burying bin Laden at sea was an incredibly stupid move.

So I watched about 5 minutes of Fox News this morning (because I’m a masochist) to see how their spin would go, and they had some wingnut on at Ground Zero talking about how happy he was when he first heard the news about OBL’s death, but how furious he is today to find out that we buried OBL within the scope of Islamic tradition (I don’t know if this is actually true, though I do know the 24 hour rule is an element of Islamic burial tradition). The wingnut douchebag was actually upset that we didn’t fly Bin Laden’s body back here so we could drag his carcass through the streets of NYC in tickertape parade or something.

And of course, the cesspit that is my local newspaper’s message board is filled with similar sentiment - that Obama is still a huge terra-ist appeaser because he didn’t order OBL’s body to be publicly desecrated and dragged through the streets.

Some people are really, really sick.

We drink water from the sea.

Not unless we have a deathwish, or a desalinization plant.

The reason I heard for burying him at sea was so that his grave site would not become a pilgrimage site. I don’t know that there was a good way to bring him here because ... then what?

I’m a bit skeptical as to why they’d bury his body at sea.

Strategically, it makes perfect sense. Burying him at sea absolutely guarantees that his burial site can never become a shrine.

As for the death photos, I am quite certain that they exist, though we may never see them. Personally, I have no desire to ever see them, nor can I understand why any American would ever need to see them. I do understand if the millions of Muslims who were also terrorized by this monster need to see some tangible evidence of his demise to believe that Osama bin Laden is really dead and gone for good, however.

Okay then, what if you were scuba diving and while diving you see a distant encapsulated figure coming torwards you brought by the undercurrent wave motions of the water. You kick away thinking its some exotic underwater wildlife and then as it gets closer you realize its Osama bin Ladens corpse! You kick away with your fins but that only makes a vacuum action that quickly brings his body closer to you-now the icky corpse touches your wet suit and you gag while still underwater which brings in huge choking gulps of water and nearly drown!

Does that mean Bush gets credit for the shitstorm he left behind as well?
Comment #45: Neil C.  on 05/02 at 12:37 PM

Hmm, let me check the rules.

Nope.

#69,
But they do desalinize. Were still drinking from the sea even though its been treated. Uck!

Bean, been drinking the seawater yourself?...

And hey no typos, I managed no typos. How about that. Wasn’t so hard, though for Fox it was: http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/fox-news-just-cant-help-themselves

Comment #55: Atlanta

They didn’t have their chyrons declaring:  Barry O’bama(R) confirms the successful execution of Bin Laden by our most glorious and hallowed SEALS!  WOLVERINES!!!

If the sea was good enough for Eichmann, it’s good enough for bin Laden.

But there’s one problem that is still forgotten: the supposed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks is a guy named Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, not bin Laden. And KSM’s in GITMO, has been for years, and the Congress, some New Yorkers, many Wingnut bloggers, and other scared people have been unwilling to let him be tried and (don’t bother with telling me about the legal process) executed for being the mastermind of those terrorist attacks. Some argue that we can’t allow him to be prosecuted as if he has rights. Others argue that it would reveal too much about our sordid Bush years of torture, while I say if the guy gets released back into the wild he’ll still be dead in a matter of seconds. Let that jackass have a civilian trial, a military trial, some more civilian trials, and even more military trials until he spends the rest of his fucking miserable life in courtrooms hearing about all his misdeeds. Let him explain his evil. Let him be placed into 3,000 courtrooms in the US alone, let him forever proclaim his guilt to a world that will hear his stupid words, and then maybe he’ll be ready to start serving his sentence.

But no. That would be justice of a different sort. And it might make Bush look craven. So it can’t be.

#68,
Well Osama shouldnt be buried under Islamic guidelines. He doesnt get that respect and many Muslims I’m sure wouldnt want that since they say Osama is not a Muslim but someone using the Quaran to justify murder.

If you don’t feel like celebrating, that’s fine.  That’s an authentic response.

But it’s unwise to begrudge or question other people for being happy:

http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/bin-ladens-dead-lets-party

Different people have different reactions.  Let’s learn from that instead of silence it.

If you look at it from the perspective of trying to minimize the long-term use of Osama as a symbol for terrorists, then so far it seems like they’re doing a fairly good job of this. Burial at sea robs people of a symbolic location: Imagine the security nightmare on Osama’s tomb—between jihadists wanting to pay respect to the martyr or rednecks wanting to deface it, it would have been way more work than it was worth for simple smug self-satisfaction to point to his “final resting place” and declare that “we got him.” It’s also not a method of burial that is explicitly against Islamic tradition. There is a preference that a body not be buried at sea (but really, most religions do want the dead to have a physical location), but it’s not like we wrapped his body in a ham-lined coffin—so again, we’ve shut down a venue for outrage and symbolic recruitment.

Dumping him in the sea was a good idea.

I don’t need to see any death photos. The Leftist, Wingnut, And Islamist cocspiricy theorists will just say it’s photoshopped, anyway.

Twelve hours from “He’s dead” to “Obama didn’t kill him exactly the right way.” What a great nation.

I already saw an OBL corpse photo on FB this morning anyway, and without even looking for one at that. Was real nice when trying to eat breakfast. Anyways…

Amanda, are you saying Obama was “winding it down” before Osama’s death or that he’s going to start winding it down now?  Because so far he’s been pretty dedicated to expanding the war.  Yeah, he reduced our presence in Iraq, but he’s expanded the war in Afghanistan and spread it into Pakistan.  Based on the fact that he’s putting Petraus in charge of the CIA (and that was announced after Bin Laden was killed, iirc) I don’t think he’s going to be changing course on that anytime soon.

And why would he?  The structural factors pushing him towards warmongery aren’t going to disappear because we killed one man who, frankly, hasn’t been relevant in years.

that the war on terror must go on. Obama, however, has been wisely if quietly winding it down

Are you really sure about this? It seems to me that the main effect of Obama’s policies is that the abuses of the Bush administration, both in terms of foreign and domestic human rights, are now written in stone.

You’ll recall that Bin Laden and the bulk of Al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan as guests of the Taliban government.  You’ll also recall that the Taliban assassinated the leader of the Northern Alliance the day before the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that they knew of the operation in advance.  The Taliban refused to turn Bin Laden and al Qaeda over even when faced with a US invasion.

Uh-huh:

President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty”. In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”.

The Taliban were at war with the Northern Alliance, by all accounts about as nasty a bunch as the Taliban themselves. The assassination timing was, IMHO, happenstance - they would have killed the leader as soon as they were able.  The Taliban also took their guesting of ObL quite seriously, but repeatedly offered to turn him over to an international tribunal or third party if the US presented proof.

Besdies - one mass-murdering religious nut bought down, now onto Bush.

We drink water from the sea. I dont want Osama cooties! I mean, seriously couldnt they have just buried him normally in some dirt or at least cremated his body and dump it over the land in Afghanistan rather than dump it in our drinking water?

You recall how Islam is a religion filled with martyrs and their shrines?...

Obama ran on his idea that Afghanistan was a more important focus than Iraq. Anyone who is saddened by his betrayal of their wishes really needs to look back on what Obama said he was rather than what people wanted him to be. The Wingnut mockery of “The One” and such didn’t come entirely out of the shriveled lizard brainstems of World Net Daily writers, as there really is a cognitive dissonance issue between what some people expect of Obama and the evidence on record.

Those same people never notice that Obama can’t unilaterally close GITMO and ship the prisoners to someplace else. It’s frustrating to see someone work against an Imperial Presidency using the powers he does have and not the powers we want him to have, but Obama’s a Constitutional scholar and not a nitwit with a bunch of sycophantic industry Yes Men in his office.

PiaToR: Let’s not get carried away.  The Taliban were much worse than the Northern Alliance, mostly because the Taliban are something of a border condition for how bad a regime can be.

That said, of course Bush wouldn’t accept any surrender from bin Laden, because Bush wanted to kill some brown people.  He’s a conservative, and that’s what they all want.

That said, it is wildly wrong not to dispose of bin Laden’s body in a fashion consistent with his religion, especially if “burial at sea” is an allowed option.  Once he’s dead, we’re done with him.  Disposing of his body in accordance with his culture’s generally accepted approaches displays power and magnanimity.  It implies (correctly or not) that there is a limit to our anger and no limit to our power.

PiaToR: Let’s not get carried away.  The Taliban were much worse than the Northern Alliance, mostly because the Taliban are something of a border condition for how bad a regime can be.

Er, nope.  The stuff I’ve read suggested that when teh NA were in power before being kicked out, they were worse thna the Taliban.

I realise that they’re now American allies-of-convenience - but so is the guy noted as boiling dissidents alive.

“Obama ran on his idea that Afghanistan was a more important focus than Iraq. Anyone who is saddened by his betrayal of their wishes really needs to look back on what Obama said he was rather than what people wanted him to be. The Wingnut mockery of “The One” and such didn’t come entirely out of the shriveled lizard brainstems of World Net Daily writers, as there really is a cognitive dissonance issue between what some people expect of Obama and the evidence on record.

Those same people never notice that Obama can’t unilaterally close GITMO and ship the prisoners to someplace else. It’s frustrating to see someone work against an Imperial Presidency using the powers he does have and not the powers we want him to have, but Obama’s a Constitutional scholar and not a nitwit with a bunch of sycophantic industry Yes Men in his office.”

You should re-examine your talking points, no one here suggested Obama betrayed his campaign promises by expanding the war in Afghanistan.  I was just disagreeing with Amanda that Obama’s been winding up the War on Terrorism.

Also, in what way has Obama worked against the Imperial Presidency?  He’s expanded the powers of the President if anything, just not in ways that’d reduce war.

I don’t think anything can top being allied with Stalin in WWII.

Those same people never notice that Obama can’t unilaterally close GITMO and ship the prisoners to someplace else.

Your point is valid, though Obama does deserve the criticism he received for having made a promise that apparently he had absolutely no business making. If it’s true that it was beyond his power to ensure that GITMO would be closed by January 20, 2010, he should never have said, “We will close GITMO by January 20, 2010.” He’s guilty of writing a check with his mouth that his ass couldn’t cash.

“I don’t think anything can top being allied with Stalin in WWII.”

In terms of what?  We’ve done way worse things than support a country that was invaded by fascists.  Like support fascists invade and occupy another country for 30 years (East Timor).

Thank you so much for posting this. The self-righteous moralizers made me roll my eyes, but it’s important to note that what they’re attempting to do is force everyone to deal with something like this in the way that they deem most suitable, and that’s just not a reasonable expectation. Sometimes the world is a dark place, and sometimes somebody’s death causes feelings of relief or elation. When I was in the sixth grade, a teacher at my school was murdered by her husband. When the announcement went out that he had been found dead, my classroom erupted in cheers. It’s macabre, to be sure, when a bunch of eleven-year-olds are cheering the death of a man they don’t know, and our teacher scolded us about it, but, really, how dare she? It’s a complex situation, and it’s a complex world.

@clever screen name

In terms of having nasty, totalitarian allies. Of course Stalin was the lesser evil next to Hitler, but that’s damning with faint praise

Er, nope.  The stuff I’ve read suggested that when teh NA were in power before being kicked out, they were worse thna the Taliban.

How much worse could they have really been?

Was the acid the Northern Alliance threw in the faces of women who got too uppity more caustic and painful on the skin than the acid used by the Taliban for the same purpose?

Sometimes PiaToR, in your zeal to criticize what America has done wrong (and much of your criticism is quite valid), you literally become the ridiculous caricature that the right makes of the left in suggesting that those on the left are sympathizers of the Taliban.

Everything about invading Iraq was wrong and illegal and unjustified, and the U.S. deserves every bit of criticism it has gotten for that immoral war. That doesn’t mean that Iraq was a pleasant place to live before we went there, or that Saddam Hussein was anything less than a vile genocidal maniac guilty of crimes against humanity. His removal from power was a good thing, even if the route by whcih he was removed was completely wrong and unjustified. The ends hardly justified the means, but the ends were still a good thing nonetheless.

Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy.

Jussain.

Or for that matter,Churchill and the British Empire weren’t exactly pure as snow, either.

Foreign policy is often very cynical, even when achieving good ends.

@98

Sorry, where did Phonecian say the Taliban weren’t morally reprehensible?  Don’t fucking lecture people about being a caricature and then wave away the death of 1.4 million Iraqis by saying Saddam was a bad guy.

@96

Pretty sure your teacher was right to scold you duder.

A big difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan was already a warzone even before the intervention. Iraq was not.

How much worse could they have really been?

Let’s see

Violations of international humanitarian law committed by United Front factions include:

# Late 1999 - early 2000: Internally displaced persons who fled from villages in and around Sangcharak district recounted summary executions, burning of houses, and widespread looting during the four months that the area was held by the United Front. Several of the executions were reportedly carried out in front of members of the victims’ families. Those targeted in the attacks were largely ethnic Pashtuns and, in some cases, Tajiks.

# September 20-21, 1998: Several volleys of rockets were fired at the northern part of Kabul, with one hitting a crowded night market. Estimates of the number of people killed ranged from seventy-six to 180. The attacks were generally believed to have been carried out by Massoud’s forces, who were then stationed about twenty-five miles north of Kabul. A spokesperson for United Front commander Ahmad Shah Massoud denied targeting civilians. In a September 23, 1998, press statement, the International Committee of the Red Cross described the attacks as indiscriminate and the deadliest that the city had seen in three years.

# Late May 1997: Some 3,000 captured Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Junbish forces under the command of Gen. Abdul Malik Pahlawan. The killings followed Malik’s withdrawal from a brief alliance with the Taliban and the capture of the Taliban forces who were trapped in the city. Some of the Taliban troops were taken to the desert and shot, while others were thrown down wells and then blown up with grenades.

# January 5, 1997: Junbish planes dropped cluster munitions on residential areas of Kabul. Several civilians were killed and others wounded in the indiscriminate air raid, which also involved the use of conventional bombs.

# March 1995: Forces of the faction operating under Commander Massoud, the Jamiat-i Islami, were responsible for rape and looting after they captured Kabul’s predominantly Hazara neighborhood of Karte Seh from other factions. According to the U.S. State Department’s 1996 report on human rights practices in 1995, “Massood’s troops went on a rampage, systematically looting whole streets and raping women.”

# On the night of February 11, 1993 Jamiat-i Islami forces and those of another faction, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami, conducted a raid in West Kabul, killing and “disappearing” ethnic Hazara civilians, and committing widespread rape. Estimates of those killed range from about seventy to more than one hundred.

# In addition, the parties that constitute the United Front have committed other serious violations of internationally recognized human rights. In the years before the Taliban took control of most of Afghanistan, these parties had divided much of the country among themselves while battling for control of Kabul. In 1994 alone, an estimated 25,000 were killed in Kabul, most of them civilians killed in rocket and artillery attacks. One-third of the city was reduced to rubble, and much of the remainder sustained serious damage. There was virtually no rule of law in any of the areas under the factions’ control. In Kabul, Jamiat-i Islami, Ittihad, and Hizb-i Wahdat forces all engaged in rape, summary executions, arbitrary arrest, torture, and “disappearances.” In Bamiyan, Hizb-i Wahdat commanders routinely tortured detainees for extortion purposes.

And then there’s this sort of report:

BALKH, Afghanistan - In a country where women have long lived in the shadows, rape is an especially potent political weapon. To this, the women of northern Afghanistan can attest - at least those who dare speak publicly.

The ouster of the Taliban by the US-backed Northern Alliance did not stop the use of rape as a way to demoralize and dominate. But what has changed since the fall is the identity of the victims, now mostly Pashtun families and displaced people living in camps, the losers following the defeat of the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.

The crime is perpetrated, say victims and aid workers, by the men who answer to warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, a Northern Alliance commander whose 3,000-man army, Junbish-e-Millie, now rules much of the country’s north.
[...]
Pashtun families make easy targets because the Junbish disarmed many of them when Dostum’s troops, assisted by US special forces who continue to accompany the warlord everywhere, drove out the Taliban.

‘‘The Junbish see a home, and they know there are Pashtuns living there, and they go inside and rape the women and threaten the men not to talk about it,’’ said Amir Jan, the leader of the Pashtun community in the Balkh area. ‘‘They know no one can do anything about it.’‘

@102 Afghanistan was in a state of (relative) stability when we invaded, at least compared to decades of overt civil war

I don’t call being in a civil war “stable”, but YMMV.

Compared to the massive amounts of deaths going on in the 80’s and 90’s and now I think it’s fair to call it relatively stable.

Criticizing a response is NOT the same as silencing it.  That’s the same attitude you hear from conservatives who don’t like to be told they’re being racist.  Freedom of speech is a two way street.

Regardless my point is that there was already a war in Afghanistan before the presence of American troops. In Iraq, it was American troops that instigated a war. That’s a big difference.

Yes and the United States had nothing whatsoever to do with Afghanistan being in a state of perpetual Civil War.

Sure we did, along with Russia and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Not sure what your point is.

Pretty sure your teacher was right to scold you duder.

Just go ahead and keep on championing the notion that there’s a correct way to feel when the murderer of a beloved teacher is found dead. Are you going around policing your friends’ reactions to bin Laden’s death, too? It’s not just a rude or an annoying thing to do, it’s reprehensible. People are going to feel how they’re going to feel, regardless of what you think about it.

That your attempts to excuse the invasion of Afghanistan by saying it was already in a state of war are vapid and empty because, even if we accept that being and war makes our invasion more acceptable somehow, we were one of the main reasons Afghanistan is so fucked up to begin with.  Gorbachev attempted to work out a peace deal that would result in a stable government in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal but Reagan refused to play ball, and Afghanis have been paying for it ever since.

Sorry, where did Phonecian say the Taliban weren’t morally reprehensible?  Don’t fucking lecture people about being a caricature and then wave away the death of 1.4 million Iraqis by saying Saddam was a bad guy.

Seriously?

“Everything about invading Iraq was wrong and illegal and unjustified, and the U.S. deserves every bit of criticism it has gotten for that immoral war.” = “waving away the deaths if 1.4 million Iraqis”?

How about not lecturing me, douche?

I’ve been a round here a little longer than you. PiaToR has an earnest and valid contempt for much of U.S. foreign policy, but sometimes his contempt gets so over-the-top that he starts making absurd claims such as arguing that the Northern Alliance was so much worse than the Taliban. And while the citations about NA atrocities are compelling, I can cite about a zillion reports of Taliban atrocities that are just as compelling.

Do the Taliban atrocities necessarily justify our invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001? No, certainly not. But to imply that Taliban-ruled Afghanistan prior to our invasion was anything remotely close to a happy little haven of civility and tranquility is absurd.

I’m not so much scolding as alarmed. I find it hard to believe people don’t see how the post-9/11 mass anger/post-traumatic response that got us into this mess in the first place is just the (only slightly) darker side of the same emotional state that have people cheering now. There’s a gulf of difference between understanding why people feel a certain way and endorsing it.

Would Ingsoc’s Two-Minute Hate have been less abhorent just because Emmanuel Goldstein WAS actually truly a vile bastard?

@113

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I needed to defer to you because you’ve been posting in the comment section of this blog longer.  Fuck you.

Phonecian’s assertion that the Northern Alliance is just as bad (and in some ways worse, I don’t think he made a blanket statement like that) is not an absurd claim.  It’s perfectly arguable and you have in no way engaged him on it.  Instead you repeat the standard imperialist apologia bullshit about Saddam being a horrific dictator and the world being better off with him gone and then call Phonecian a leftist caricature. 

A big part of the imperialist mentality in America today is that you can’t oppose wars without someone accusing you of sympathizing with whoever America’s enemy of the moment is.  Stop strengthening that tendency.

Criticizing a response is NOT the same as silencing it.  That’s the same attitude you hear from conservatives who don’t like to be told they’re being racist.

Except that racism is wrong and cheering over the death of an wartime enemy is an acceptable reaction, even if it’s not the most virtuous/charitable one. You are allowed to enforce charitable before for yourself, but you are not allowed to police the charitable/uncharitable behavior of others.

I completely agree that the US was one of the main reasons that Afghanistan was screwed up. But my actual point was that Afghanistan was in a state of war before a single American soldier ever set foot there, vs. Iraq where war was introduced. I was drawing a contrast between the two wars. It is far more immoral to introduce war to a peaceful country than to intervene on one side in an ongoing civil war. The neglect of Afghanistan by the United States after the Soviet withdrawl was a monumental mistake, but I don’t see how it makes the contrast with Iraq “vapid”. You can acknowledge that and still oppose the war.

You started off claiming that Afghanistan in September of 2001 was “relatively stable”, but now youasre saying it was fucked up? That the United States made catastrophic mistakes in its Afghanistan policy doesn’t make the contrast with Iraq any less true.

I’ve been a round here a little longer than you. PiaToR has an earnest and valid contempt for much of U.S. foreign policy, but sometimes his contempt gets so over-the-top that he starts making absurd claims such as arguing that the Northern Alliance was so much worse than the Taliban. And while the citations about NA atrocities are compelling, I can cite about a zillion reports of Taliban atrocities that are just as compelling.

Go ahead.  The telling bit for me were the reports, prior to 2001, that the populace cheered on the Taliban and were grateful for them to come in and take over from the UF.

Let’s be clear - the Taliban are religiously-motivated thugs.  The UF, as far as I can see, are power-motivated thugs.  To some extent, it may be better to be ruled by fundamentalists than by those in it solely for power.

@BlackBloc, that’s the first real and compelling argument I’ve heard against celebrating. Something to think about, for sure.

“It is far more immoral to introduce war to a peaceful country than to intervene on one side in an ongoing civil war.”

Really?  Why?  I don’t see why that would necessarily be true.

Even conceding that for the sake of argument, the contrast is still stupid.  Iraq wasn’t exactly peaceful either, Saddam only controlled the middle part of the country

“The neglect of Afghanistan by the United States after the Soviet withdrawl was a monumental mistake, but I don’t see how it makes the contrast with Iraq “vapid”. You can acknowledge that and still oppose the war.”

Because even if we agreed that that’s somehow a meaningful distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan and that it does have some relevance to a moral comparison between the wars, the United States is still at fault for Afghanistan being a mess.

“You started off claiming that Afghanistan in September of 2001 was “relatively stable”, but now youasre saying it was fucked up?”

Yes.  Those are both true.

I’m not so much scolding as alarmed. I find it hard to believe people don’t see how the post-9/11 mass anger/post-traumatic response that got us into this mess in the first place is just the (only slightly) darker side of the same emotional state that have people cheering now. There’s a gulf of difference between understanding why people feel a certain way and endorsing it.

It’s a real thin line. I have a cousin who is a year older than me who was raped by an acquaintance when she was 13. That acquaintance never faced any criminal prosecution or punishment whatsoever. He continued to be a huge douchebag after raping my cousin, and several months after raping my cousin, he lost control of his truck and went over a guardrail to his death while driving intoxicated.

While I didn’t go doing cartwheels in the street over it, I’d be lying if I said that I felt any sadness whatsoever over his death beyond a sense of sadness for his immediate family. I thought the dude was huge piece of shit before he Darwinned himself out of the gene pool via Bud Light, and I continued to think he was a huge POS the day after his F150 did a faceplant into a boulder.

Maybe it makes me a terrible person that I wasn’t more saddened by the death of a despicable human being, who I judge as despicable because he did unambiguously despicable things, namely rape. Earnest sadness is something I have a limited supply of, and I prefer to reserve it for the people who don’t go around raping other people or committing other such atrocities against their fellow human beings.

@BlackBloc

I’m confused.  How should we have felt after 9/11?  Should we not have been angry?  Should we not have been traumatized?  I was under the impression that all of those things were fine and really have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the mess we got into.  They were used as excuses for other, darker emotions that existed prior to 9/11 and will probably continue to exist for years to come.  Same with the people cheering today.  Sure, some of them (maybe even most, but not all) might be cheering because they are genuinely sick fucks but they would be sick fucks whether they were cheering or not.  The problem isn’t the cheering, the problem is the sick fucks.

Would Ingsoc’s Two-Minute Hate have been less abhorent just because Emmanuel Goldstein WAS actually truly a vile bastard?

If the two-minute hate happened like one time ever (even if it went on a bit long) instead of every day, it wasn’t led or mandatory, and Goldstein was Osama bin Laden?  Fuck yes.  What a ridiculous question.  How about this one:
You: I think playing Risk is a fine thing to do.
Me: Would it be less wrong for Canada to invade every nation in the world tomorrow if you had really good troop placement before it all started?

@BlackBloc

I’m confused.  How should we have felt after 9/11?  Should we not have been angry?  Should we not have been traumatized?  I was under the impression that all of those things were fine and really have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the mess we got into.  They were used as excuses for other, darker emotions that existed prior to 9/11 and will probably continue to exist for years to come.  Same with the people cheering today.  Sure, some of them (maybe even most, but not all) might be cheering because they are genuinely sick fucks but they would be sick fucks whether they were cheering or not.  The problem isn’t the cheering, the problem is the sick fucks.

Would Ingsoc’s Two-Minute Hate have been less abhorent just because Emmanuel Goldstein WAS actually truly a vile bastard?

If the two-minute hate happened like one time ever (even if it went on a bit long) instead of every day, it wasn’t led or mandatory, and Goldstein was Osama bin Laden?  Fuck yes.  What a ridiculous question.  How about this one: You: I think playing Risk is a fine thing to do. Me: Would it be less wrong for Canada to invade every nation in the world tomorrow if you had really good troop placement before it all started?

Shit.  Sorry about that.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I needed to defer to you because you’ve been posting in the comment section of this blog longer.  Fuck you.

Apologies for suggesting that you should defer to me because of the amount of time I have been posting here in comparison to you.

Nonetheless, it would be nice if you wouldn’t act like such a sanctimonious douchebag.

It’s different because in one case, people are already dying, and in the other, people aren’t until you take action. And are you really comparing Kurdish autonomy under a no-fly zone to out-and-out civil war? There were no battles being fought in Iraq before the invasion, no front lines, no bombings. That Saddam didn’t have political control over Kurdistan is beside the point.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I needed to defer to you because you’ve been posting in the comment section of this blog longer.  Fuck you.

I apologize for implying that you should defer to me because of the amount of time I have been posting here in comparison to you.

Nonetheless, it would be nice if you would not act like such a sanctimonious bag o’ douche.

Or do act like one. Makes little difference to me.

Shit, stupid forum glitches. Didn’t mean to double post @ #128.

    I guess nobody’s going to take one for the team and check out Freeperville, huh?

    Just imagine the comedy if Bush had had to pronounce “Abbattabad” and “Islamabad” repeatedly.

    I guess nobody’s going to take one for the team and check out Freeperville, huh?

    Just imagine the comedy if Bush had had to pronounce “Abbattabad” and “Islamabad” repeatedly.

I suspect the Taliban offer to turn over Bin Laden was about as sincere as that offer I got in ym email last night to move $10,000,000 into my bank account if I just gave that nice lady from Ivory Coast my account and pin #s.

“It’s different because in one case, people are already dying, and in the other, people aren’t until you take action. And are you really comparing Kurdish autonomy under a no-fly zone to out-and-out civil war? There were no battles being fought in Iraq before the invasion, no front lines, no bombings. That Saddam didn’t have political control over Kurdistan is beside the point.”

Why does that matter?  Our intervention made the Afghan Civil War worse, not better (as lot’s of people were predicting at the time).  The presence of fighting before an invasion does not necessarily make that intervention more or less acceptable.

@132

Perhaps.  I doubt it though, I think the Taliban genuinely wanted the bombing to stop.  Either way, Bush should have followed up on it instead of using force as a first resort.

Well, sure, they were playing for time.  But that doesn’t change the fact that Bush wasn’t interested.

And yeah, watching Obama announce bin Laden’s death did in fact remind me that this oligarch in charge is at least remotely competent, and that is a lot better.

  Okay, I give up. Why did that post twice? Frickin’ Chrome.

I find it hard to believe people don’t see how the post-9/11 mass anger/post-traumatic response that got us into this mess in the first place is just the (only slightly) darker side of the same emotional state that have people cheering now.

People are cheering out of relief. Christians regularly ask the Lord to deliver them from evil. We have been delivered from evil—a man who ordered death and destruction for thousands of us, for no good reason. A man who lived beyond the reach of justice for years. A man who can no longer do us any harm.

@135

Why does this make him more competent than Bush?  By all indications, this happened because Pakistani military intelligence sold out Bin Laden (he was literally staying right next door to the Kakul military academy).  Until we know why that happened, and what Obama had to do to get them to turn him over, I don’t think we can say whether this was a smart move or a political one.

Also, we really should have taken him alive.

irritation at being scolded by well-meaning folks for being glad

But Amanda, doesn’t being a progressive feminist mean that you have the infinite compassion of the Dalai Lama and are obligated to bludgeon morally inferior beings over the head with it? Have you checked out the other feminist blogs-which I will not name?

@HectorB. : If you really think people are cheering out of *relief* I have a bridge to sell you. And I thought *I* had a rosy view of humanity…

we really should have taken him alive.

How?

Why?

Democrat presidents have gotten us into or kept us in far more bullshit wars.

Major wars started by the Democrats: WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia.

Policing the world since 1917.

@142, Bob Dole,  is that you?

@141

How?  The way we usually apprehend criminals I guess.  Again, he was right next to Pakistan’s biggest military academy.  Capturing him alive should have been attempted, at least.  (If you don’t think they went in with the intent to kill him, then you’re pretty naive IMO)

Why?  So we could try him like we should have done ten years ago when the Taliban offered to send him to the Hague.

@Hector B.

Yes!  I’d also add that some people are cheering because they don’t really know how to sort out all of the complicated emotions they are feeling or even just how to deal with something as (let’s face it) unexpected and historic as this, other people are cheering and joining the crowd gives them an outlet for the stress of that while also letting them feel like they are not alone.  I don’t see anything malicious or wrong in that. 

Last night on Facebook, a friend of mine asked what everyone was doing when they heard the news.  He was looking at funny cat pictures, someone else was at the gym, etc. I was here on Pandagon. (Thanks, roscoe3680!)  The discussion devolved into masturbation jokes. Tasteless? Maybe. Are we all people who get off on imagining bin Laden dead? Possibly according to the criteria for appropriate responses put forth on this thread. Christ.

  Various farm animals are more competent than Bush,  for Pete’s sake. He dismissed credible information before 9/11, then used those deaths as the excuse to invade a country that had nothingto do with 9/11.  How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis did his hubris kill?

The thing with Afghanistan has always mystified me.

First off, the tribes there have been killing each other for centuries.  There is no reason to believe the inter-tribal hatreds are going away any time soon.

Second, they drove the British out way back in the day, when Britain was unquestionably the super power on the planet.

Third, they drove out the Soviets when the Soviets were second in military strength only to us.  They were there for 10-years and left with their tails between their legs.  (It should be easy for us to remember all about this since we were happily giving the Afghans tons of weapons with which to kill Soviets.  Including giving some to a certain Saudi Islamic revolutionary there named Osama bin Laden.  The Che Guevara of Mooslims.)

So, the next question is:  What is it about Afghani history that made (some of) us think it was a great idea to invade them?  Wasn’t Bush Jr’s degree in History?  Was he sleeping (or hammered out of his mind) on that day in class?

Then the final question is:  You’re the Democratic POTUS who inherits the mess created by Darth Cheney, Bush Jr, and Condi Rice and the rest of the moral and mental midgets of that benighted administration.  As expected, we’re in two wars that are Vietnam-style endless clusterfucks, not to mention the Economy is in the toilet.  Now what do you do?...

The pathetic defence of bloodthirsty celebration offered by so many American liberals has rather hammered home exactly how thin the division between the right and so-called “left” in the United States really is. The complete inability of the"left” to offer a general critique of American interventionism beyond “no, not like *that*” wasn’t exactly flattering, but, Jesus, you’ve come out of this looking like little more than slightly wimpier conservatives. Not impressed, liberals, *not* impressed.

Ah, but I’m “moralising”, aren’t I? My apologies. Wouldn’t want to spoil your little triumphalist wake.

Finnegan-I acknowledge you as my moral superior. Enjoy.

Speaking of masturbation…..

a general critique of American interventionism

1. The killing of forces responsible for an attack on US soil is the opposite of interventionism.
2. You lot moved Heaven and Earth to get the US to intervene against Hitler. Sir William Stephenson ran the propaganda campaign from an office in New York. Half of Americans at that time being of Axis heritage, the urge to intervene was wholly lacking at first.

Major wars started by the Democrats: WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia.

Policing the world since 1917.

Huh, guess my history teacher and history books told me wrong. Thought it was Kaiser Wilhelm II who started WWI and Britain was involved in it long before the US joined in.

I guess nobody’s going to take one for the team and check out Freeperville, huh?

Yeah, right.  And you’ll be supplying the emetic bags?

Also, we really should have taken him alive.

What makes you assume that it was ever an option? Supposedly, Bin Laden personally used a woman as a human shield during the raid.

As an aside, I just a saw surreal pictures of the Situation Room with Sec. Clinton, President Obama and the National Security team watching live helmet-cam video of the raid taking place almost exactly 24 hours ago. I’m guessing that the White House had live visual confirmation of Bin Laden’s death literally within moments of it happening.

First off, the tribes there have been killing each other for centuries.  There is no reason to believe the inter-tribal hatreds are going away any time soon.

Yeah! Next thing you know people will be suggesting that the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland will start getting along. I mean, how absurd is that? And don’t even get me started on France and England: those two have been at each other’s throat for like a millennia or so. We certainly can’t expect them to act like civlized people any time soon.

Supposedly, Bin Laden personally used a woman as a human shield during the raid.

A comment from an “unnamed American official”?

I fully believe there may have been at least one woman in the compound, who might have been encountered by the SEAL team.  I also fully believe that that’s enough for an anecdote to be concocted about the ruthless terrorist leader holding a screaming virgin with a knife to her throat in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

Hey, did the Kuwaitis ever get their incubators back after the Iraqis emptied them?

  Major wars started by the Democrats: WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia.

Huh, guess my history teacher and history books told me wrong. Thought it was Kaiser Wilhelm II who started WWI and Britain was involved in it long before the US joined in.

Balkan nationalists started WW I.

Korea: Defeat of the Japanese meant the end of occupied Korea. The US Army filled the void until democratic elections could be held, and remained to support the infant government. North Korean Communists invaded the South, and the US as occupying authority responded.

Vietnam: Truman and Eisenhower supported the colonial French against Ho Chi Minh. After the French left, the country was temporarily divided in two. Southerners proclaimed their independence, provoking a civil war. Eisenhower and Kennedy supported the noncommunist Southerners, but LBJ sent in ground troops.

Balkan nationalists started the Bosnian War.

How?

Giant-sized butterfly net. Then furry pink handcuffs.

Why?

Cage-mobile ... Broadway ... souvenir “I Love NY” pokin’ sticks. Think about it.

[and no, Finnegan, I’m not serious]

So, the next question is:  What is it about Afghani history that made (some of) us think it was a great idea to invade them?

In a word, geography. Afghanistan has at various times been a strategic and economic crossroads between east and west. Trust me, it isn’t pleasant and verdant terrain, the friendly and welcoming locals, religious tolerance or innovation-driven prosperity that keeps drawing empires into their graveyard.

The British were in the to “spar with the Tsar” and keep his sphere of influence from extending into India. Imperial geopolitics.

The Soviets were involved their own version of “The Great Game,” attempting to extend their own sphere of influence toward the Middle East instead of South Asia. Ideological geopolitics.

And the U.S.? It wasn’t only about Bin Laden and the Taliban. After all, we can’t let those Central Asians enjoy all the benefits of TAPI. And really, when you combine the U.S. energy industry, a corrupt and weak warlord like Kharzai, drug gangs, religious fanatics with a penchant for explosives, and age-old ethnic and tribal feuds, what could possibly go wrong along a thousand-mile pipeline?

Which brings to mind one of the major reasons (amongst many, many, many pretext major and minor) why Afghani tribes have been fighting amongst each-other since, y’know, forever (long before the first Western imperialists started meddling): lots of potential plunder along that rugged stretch of the Silk Road = lots of reason for one bandit clan to hold grudges against another.

Balkan nationalists started WW I.

...

Balkan nationalists started the Bosnian War.

Ah, those Balkan nationalists. They almost make the Afghani tribes seem like paragons of ethnic and religious tolerance.

<blockquote>I fully believe there may have been at least one woman in the compound, who might have been encountered by the SEAL team.  I also fully believe that that’s enough for an anecdote to be concocted about the ruthless terrorist leader holding a screaming virgin with a knife to her throat in an attempt to delay the inevitable.</i> Except we’ve actually seen this tactic with Kaddafi and the insurgents in Iraq. And sometimes those human shields were most definitely not willing, which is what sounds like the case here.

They almost make the Afghani tribes seem like paragons of ethnic and religious tolerance.

If Afghans had three religions and two alphabets, and a thousand years of fear and mistrust between each group, yeah. The only thing they have in common is cevapi and tamburitza.

Supposedly, Bin Laden personally used a woman as a human shield during the raid.
A comment from an “unnamed American official”?

I fully believe there may have been at least one woman in the compound, who might have been encountered by the SEAL team.  I also fully believe that that’s enough for an anecdote to be concocted about the ruthless terrorist leader holding a screaming virgin with a knife to her throat in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

Hey, did the Kuwaitis ever get their incubators back after the Iraqis emptied them?

I don’t know the official story, hence the inclusion of the word “supposedly” in my characterization. Of course it is fair to take the claim with a huge grain of salt.

But there’s a critical difference between a healthy skepticism of the supposed story and the kneejerk assumption that the exact opposite of the claim being made must be the real truth.

Do I know that the purported claim that Osama bin Laden used a woman as a human shield during the firefight is true? No I do not… just as you don’t know that the claim is untrue. Unless new information has emerged in the last 20 minutes that I am unaware of, the “OBL used a woman as a human shield” claim is still unverified, neither proven nor disproven as of yet.

It is naive to automatically and uncritically assume that the “official” version of events presented by the American authorities must be true. It is also quite paranoid to automatically assume that what actually took place must be the exact opposite of whatever was claimed to have taken place by American authorities involved.

Sometimes a grassy knoll is a critical element in massive conspiracy. And some other times, it is just a grassy knoll.

I’m wholly expecting this to appear as a double post, but whatever. Fuck the intertubes gremlins that continue to plague this otherwise wonderful blog.

———————————-

Supposedly, Bin Laden personally used a woman as a human shield during the raid.
A comment from an “unnamed American official”?

I fully believe there may have been at least one woman in the compound, who might have been encountered by the SEAL team.  I also fully believe that that’s enough for an anecdote to be concocted about the ruthless terrorist leader holding a screaming virgin with a knife to her throat in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

Hey, did the Kuwaitis ever get their incubators back after the Iraqis emptied them?

I don’t know the official story, hence the inclusion of the word “supposedly” in my characterization. Of course it is fair to take the claim with a huge grain of salt.

But there’s a critical difference between a healthy skepticism of the supposed story and the kneejerk assumption that the exact opposite of the claim being made must be the real truth.

Do I know that the purported claim that Osama bin Laden used a woman as a human shield during the firefight is true? No I do not… just as you don’t know that the claim is untrue. Unless new information has emerged in the last 20 minutes that I am unaware of, the “OBL used a woman as a human shield” claim is still unverified, neither proven nor disproven as of yet.

It is naive to automatically and uncritically assume that the “official” version of events presented by the American authorities must be true. It is also quite paranoid to automatically assume that what actually took place must be the exact opposite of whatever was claimed to have taken place by American authorities involved.

Sometimes a grassy knoll is a critical element in massive conspiracy. And some other times, it is just a grassy knoll.

Except we’ve actually seen this tactic with Kaddafi and the insurgents in Iraq. And sometimes those human shields were most definitely not willing, which is what sounds like the case here.

We’ve also seen lies, confusion, and insufficient information spun into stories coming out of every White House in times of high excitement.  It’s nice to paint your enemies as devils incarnate - the more rational idea is to assume they were very confused and in the middle of a chaotic situation(*), and that any information about how they reacted is going to be distorted by the biases of those reporting it (**).

(*) I’m pretty sure a Seal raid with the intent to kill in the wee small hours counts as a chaotic situation for those on the receiving end.  Briefly.

(**) There’s an old line from the RPG “Paranoia” that states that the best way to start any end-of-mission debriefing is “As I am the only one reporting back, Friend Computer, ...”

<i.It is naive to automatically and uncritically assume that the “official” version of events presented by the American authorities must be true.</i>

Except that we do know that the Americans are going to paint ObL in the worst possible light.  Maybe he did use a woman as a shield, maybe he froze in confusion, maybe he was sharing a bed with his wife, maybe some other woman got in the way.

When the Taliban report on civilian casualties from American bombing, this is always dismissed unless and until journalists document it, even if it is likely - because the Taliban have a vested interest in painting Americans as monsters.

The US Government has a vested interest in painting ObL as a monster.  When you don’t know whether the “official” version of events is true or not, you go with assuming it’s biased towards the people making the report.

@157

The United States blocked elections that they’d agreed to hold in both Vietnam and Korea.  Also pinning WWI on Balkan nationalists is super reductionist (and I’m pretty sure he was talking about US involvement, anyway)

“And don’t even get me started on France and England: those two have been at each other’s throat for like a millennia or so. We certainly can’t expect them to act like civlized people any time soon.”

...not to put too fine a point on it, but England and France were at each others throats an eye-blink ago in geologic time.  And “civilized” is in the eye of the beholder.

And I understand that it’s easy to dismiss the enmity among various groups of Afghans centuries ago.  But if there’s one thing that will bring disparate groups together in a hurry, it’s invading their country.

And the Soviet experience (using weapons not all that different from what we’re using there now), only ended a couple decades ago. 

The only thing the Soviets lacked that we have are the “pilotless” drones (BTW, of course they have pilots, they’re just not physically located in the aircraft they’re flying).  And we all know the use of drones has completely eliminated all of our soldier’s injuries as well as all civilian casualties, right?...

Except, Phoenician, you’re just being nitpicky here for no discernible good reason.  Is there some reason to doubt this story given that it involved the SEALs and room-to-room clear-and-search?

I mean, maybe I missed where bin Laden wrote poetry when he wasn’t obtaining large quantities of explosives, training terrorists, and rejoicing at the deaths of large numbers of people. Apparently, however, he’s really a secret knight in shining armor. Amongst the people he killed were large numbers of Muslims who dared to have more moderate views than he did. Unlike the baby incubator rumor, which was classic war bullshit, this one deserves the benefit of the doubt.

How much worse of a light is there to paint him in, seriously? One of the people on the planes that hit the WTC was a two-year-old girl. One was a pregnant Muslim woman and her American convert husband. Two thousand, nine hundred ninety six people. How much worse does it get? I saw shit in Iraq that people would not believe if I talked about it because they want to believe that there are some things people won’t do. And some of those things were on our side. But the other side, well…...It wasn’t us shooting pregnant women in the street in front of their sons,  then slitting the little boy’s throat so he could die after watching his mom get killed.

#88 Phoenician,
I was sort of joking in reference to the drinking water, but I just read that our military had to wash his body before dumping it in the ocean. I’m a bit miffed that the msn.com article I read quotes clerics and imams kvetching about how that was the wrong burial under Islam. The guy was a terrorist criminal, he should’ve been dumped in the ocean done and done. No nit-picking since how in the world is he a Muslim again? If I go out and murder hundreds, rape and beat people but say I’m a Muslim am I truly a Muslim? I hate these religious assrats. It’s just as inane when you have a priest get a proper Catholic burial after, molesting hundreds of children. Our military shouldnt have had to touch his body for any reason other than to beat it. Humiliation to US is whats more impotant than humiliating a terrorist.

When responding to someone, use their name, please.  We aren’t numbers, and besides, the numbers move around when spam and trolls get deleted.

Please?

#165 Phoenician thats inane. He IS a monster. I’m sick of always reading on liberal blogs posters who try and paint us as just as bad as the terrorists. Its sick. Its some sort of bobble-headed relativist shit thats not accurate and is deeply insulting to the U.S. I mean the guy is a sick misogynist, homohobe, violent, theocratic nut job. Its Repub on crack times a thousand.

Does anyone have a link to a credible source about the circumstances of the raid?

“I hate these religious assrats. It’s just as inane when you have a priest get a proper Catholic burial after, molesting hundreds of children. Our military shouldnt have had to touch his body for any reason other than to beat it. Humiliation to US is whats more impotant than humiliating a terrorist.”

Hey, the propaganda is working!  With attitudes like that on the part of all parties involved, we can rest assured we’ll have decades, if not centuries, more hatred to keep the pointless warfare pot well stirred.

Time to buy some “defense” corporation stock!...

Rosco,
Osamas a huge misogynist, I’m sure he used the woman as a shield, it wouldnt be unlike him.

#174 MikeEss,
What are you talking about MikeEss? You dont think patriarchal religious shit is bringing down the world? You think Osama is a Muslim? That he’s worthy of being buried as a Muslim? If Hitler claimed to be Muslim would he be one just because he says so? How is any of that propoganda unless youre saying terrorism is inherently Islamic?

BeanS, you’re really disproving people’s points about Americans and bloodlust pal.

Also, this is what the administration is saying about the raid:

““There was a female who was in fact in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield bin Laden from the incoming fire,” said John Brennan, Obama’s adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism.

Brennan said it was his understanding that bin Laden picked up a weapon and was killed in the firefight with the U.S. forces carrying out the assault.

“He was engaged in a firefight,” Brennan said of bin Laden. “Whether or not he got off any rounds, I don’t know.”“

That’s awfully cagey considering they have video of the whole raid, and that definitely sounds like they went in with the intent to kill rather than capture.

  Let’s face it, all conservative religions are misogynist in nature. It’s just a matter of degree and pretense.

“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

To which I say, “What Twain said!” (assuming he really said that).

Clarence Darrow said it in his 1932 autobiography The Story Of My Life. It’s been driving me slowly insane to see this misattributed to Mark Twain - who said “I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it.” - all over the intertubes for the last 20 or so hours. Apparently, Mark Twain has become America’s Voltaire or, with apologies to Dorothy Parker, Oscar Wilde. When in doubt, Twain said it.

#177 clever screen name,
I have bloodlust. Since when did America all get together collectively and all say ‘oh we dont care about bloodlust?’ Not to mention but if they did, do you automatically assume they are talking about me; no. I dont care about good relations PR with terrorists. Every time you bring up some sort of negativity about Repubs am I supposed to chastize you and reprimand you for ‘not showing that we arent here to make partisan enemies?’ I mean, youve got to be kidding me? They killed our people and theyre still going apeshit everywhere and causing problems. Its sad you take that as a cue to try and make friends and smile. Its sad you dont see that as undignified and humiliating. FYI Taliban/Al Qaeda/Extremists are ANTI-LIBERAL + they kill people around the globe! You can hate them-they’re fair game. You arent going to see the Taliban heading an LGBT march anytime soon. Wake up.

“You dont think patriarchal religious shit is bringing down the world?”

Of course I do.  I live in the US where we’re already poisoned by our own Christian flavors of the same bullshit.  Religion will most likely kill us all.  It’s only a matter of time.

“You think Osama is a Muslim?  That he’s worthy of being buried as a Muslim?”

Not for me or you to decide.  That’s something his fellow Islamists would have to determine.  It cost us nothing to treat his body in a manner which some Islamists would appreciate, whether he “deserved” it or not.

“How is any of that propoganda unless youre saying terrorism is inherently Islamic?”

I called it propaganda because it serves the interests of the wealthy and influential for you to be filled with such hate, and for Muslims on the “other side” to radiate the same hate back at us.

I’m no pacifist, but isn’t peace something to strive for?  Isn’t warfare highly repellent and only something to engage in when all else fails?  If we can’t get a handle on the mindless hate, there is no hope we won’t eventually immolate ourselves in a nuclear fireball.  And that would be a giant bummer for everyone.

And no, I don’t think terrorism is inherently Islamic, or inherently any other religion.  Terrorism is a technique, one that has been used for millenia.  We didn’t always have a nice, simple, name for it.  But our ancestors (no matter where they came from) were well acquainted with the concept. 

Remember, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…

(Honestly, what you said reminded me of a couple of people I used to work with, who after 9/11 pulled out all the stops and began to call Arabs and Muslims “towelheads” and worse.  I’m sure that didn’t come out of the blue either.

There was one good thing about it though, you knew they were not people you wanted to maintain a friendship with, and it was nice to know that…)

#178 ginmar,
Oh yeah I know majority are patriarchal, but I think Islam is allowed to be more radical than the Western Christians because we arent a theocracy (though the xristians would like us to be) while many Muslim dominated areas in the world are. Sometimes religious sociology erupts into crazy batshit violence and oppression and I think that is whats happening with Islam now. Its similar to the Conquistadors. You can see also in the Medieval period with the Catholic Church and all their torture devices they implemented on dissenters and “heretics.” Today in Europe the orthodox practices of the Catholic Church have been overwhelmingly castrated as in America (though, not enough). Most Catholics dont hold the very conservative views that the Pope holds. Of course I dont believe majority of Muslims are terrorists or that I go around saying ‘theres a Muslim they must be a terrorist.’ However, even a minority of the billion or so Muslims being violent is nothing to scoff at any more than it would be if the Christians did it too. I treat it as I would any Christian or general patriarchal conservative religious faction. I dont care about the wrapping or else thats just being tokenist. Muslims for example in London have been shown to hold extremely conservative views that gape the general population. That isnt a very friendly population torwards liberalism. In America I dont think they’d be as conservative but a nagging suspicion tells me that they’d vote Repub if it wasnt for the war (I think I remember reading how Muslims were the largest voting bloc for Bush in his first term). Islam and Christianity are very similar and I bet their political demographics and views are similar too but maybe in the U.S. theyre slightly different because they arent as evangelical and politically organized? Regardless, when regressive religion takes a hold its hard to get it out and even more so when ones religious leaders act like Mafia.

I mean, maybe I missed where bin Laden wrote poetry when he wasn’t obtaining large quantities of explosives, training terrorists, and rejoicing at the deaths of large numbers of people. Apparently, however, he’s really a secret knight in shining armor.

*sigh*

Here we go - I know this is going to be taken as me defending ObL, which I am not.

Firstly, no-one is a villian in their own mind.  People do what they do for reasons, and each and every one of these reasons seems good to them.

Secondly, everyone interprets what the other person does based on their own prejudices, biases, ignorance and misunderstanding.

Thirdly, you have a better chance of dealing with people if you can engage with their point of view and figure out what’s motivating them.

ObL’s agenda has been clearly laid out, and it makes sense within a context of a certain strain of Islamic historical narrative - a constant reoccuring movement towards a “purer” form of Islam in the face of corruption, especially of leaders. 

To his mind, you attacked first.  The West (Britain and the US)  installed corrupt leaders (especially over Islam’s most holy places, the Sauds), and you have corrupted and attacked Muslims throughout the world in order to control resources.  Israel is nothing but an alien intrusion - an artificial “Crusader state” propped up by American arms.

I stress here that there is an alternative history to the Western-centric one we regard as normal.  I’m attempting to get my hands on this book, which looks worth reading.  ObL’s actions and - importantly - his appeal to other radical Muslims have to be understood within the context that they understand.

You talk about him “obtaining large quantities of explosives, training terrorists, and rejoicing at the deaths of large numbers of people”.  How do you think a Muslim understanding the world as the Muslim nations under attack by the West might interpret the American military machine, constant “humanitarian interventions”, and American jingoiism and unthinking support for whatever Israel gets up to?  When faced with overwhelming power, the only way to fight is terrorism - and any one choosing to fight will find a way to rationalise atrocity into their narrative.  Osama and attacking the WTC, Bush and “enhanced interrogations”.

The only alternative to understanding the people you’re fighting is simply to kill your way to victory.  And that means you will eventually need to kill every Muslim.

“That’s awfully cagey considering they have video of the whole raid, and that definitely sounds like they went in with the intent to kill rather than capture.”

After all the abuses of the truth during the Bush/Cheney administration, it’s really hard for me to take any of this stuff at face value.  Sure, Bush was worse than average, but he didn’t force the DoD to lie about Tillman, and Jessica Lynch, and Abu Graib, and Gitmo, not to mention lies about “extraordinary rendition” and secret prisons, and phone taps, and all the rest of it.

No American should labor under the assumption that their government will not lie to them…

Bin Laden’s central thesis (that America is exploiting the Middle East) is essentially correct, but filtered through a lot of religious bullshit that leads to shit like 9/11.  Unfortunately we decided during the Cold War to prop up Islamism in order to fight secular nationalism and communism in the Middle East so a lot of legitimate anger at the US gets channeled into regressive politics.  Hopefully the democratic movements in the Middle East will open up a more progressive anti-imperialist approach (assuming they don’t all get crushed, in which case, expect to see a whole lot more Bin Ladens)

Bin Laden’s central thesis (that America is exploiting the Middle East) is essentially correct, but filtered through a lot of religious bullshit that leads to shit like 9/11.  Unfortunately we decided during the Cold War to prop up Islamism in order to fight secular nationalism and communism in the Middle East so a lot of legitimate anger at the US gets channeled into regressive politics.

Remember what I said about a Western-centric narrative and an entirely different narrative?  The Muslims don’t just have a different perspective on the Cold War, they have a whole history where it doesn’t exist as you understand it.

Oh, christ, at some point you have to stop with the moral equivalency, PiaTor. In case you haven’t been paying attention, he stopped being a Muslim when he started killing other Muslims by the thousands.  I think I’m fairly safe in saying that if a religion or practitioner wants to have any credibility, they stop having it once they use it to justify murder in anything but obvious self defense. Maybe Osama lost the rhetorical battle once he embraced open, unambiguous acts of terrorism. But the fact is, he took a shotgun approach toward murder, and he didn’t care if he had to kill a few dozen Iraqis to get a few American soldiers. The US still hasn’t realized that the way you fight terrorism is not with war but with food, medication, and education. We were lied into a war by a moment of horrible national grief that Bush and co. played like a fiddle. But to act like bin Laden’s feelings matter while he attacked out of the blue any target that he could get is the rankest pseudo intellectualism. And pretty much your stock in trade. What we have is the worst of tragedies, exploited and expanded by many more deaths, distorted by lies and deliberate racism, till whatever we once felt is completely lost. Those feelings—-after bin Laden murdered thousands of people—-are more important than his justifications for those murders.

We had a chance, on September 12th, to respond to the world’s condolences and not use that as an excuse for what Bush did. We fumbled it. Philosophers can argue about the complicity of certain factions in the US for the last ten years. Some of us did resist. You’re far too much in love with the sound of your own fapping, as always, to do more than wank away about abstract theories that have little to do with the actual people involved.  And, yes, while Osama bin Laden was in fact a person, his actions were more than religious theory.

I don’t give a shit that anti-choice assholes want to define women as non-human walking wombs. Why in the fuck of shit could I care that Obama did something similar? They both make excuses. Couldn’t care less.

Oh, christ, at some point you have to stop with the moral equivalency, PiaTor. In case you haven’t been paying attention, he stopped being a Muslim when he started killing other Muslims by the thousands.

You’re talking about the religion that split early on in its history, with each side cheerfully slaughetring the other, right?

@clever screen name: I really was only referring to Obama’s capacity to speak for more than a paragraph without sounding like a bloodthirsty moron.

There are times I do love my tribe.  The infighting over how to not be dicks about US imperialism while still being a little bit of a jerk about how crazy US conservatives are is exactly the sort of thing that I kind of get off on.  We are allowed to disagree with one another in a way that conservatives never will be.

Anyways.

“In case you haven’t been paying attention, he stopped being a Muslim when he started killing other Muslims by the thousands.”

I’d bet more Christians (hundreds of thousands) have been killed in the name of (some sect of) Christianity than any other group.  While we may be appalled at the instigators of that violence, at the time most of them were admired and were seen as the best of Christian philosophy in action.

There are many Muslims who were appalled at bin Laden’s violence, but there are also many who looked up to him… 

“I think I’m fairly safe in saying that if a religion or practitioner wants to have any credibility, they stop having it once they use it to justify murder in anything but obvious self defense.”

History doesn’t seem to bear that out as often as you might think…

@151:

1. I’m referring to a wider phenomenon than just the Afghanistan War. Western meddling in the region goes back two hundred years or more, and America duly shouldered the burden when it ascended to superpowerdom.
2. That is such self-evidently emotive and irrelevant argument that I honestly don’t feel obliged to reply to it.

Ah, PiaTOR reverts to type. Gee, did Xtians burn witches? You’re always a scumbag. Nice to know you put Muslims in with rape victims and treat with equal honesty.

“Um, safe words?”

Finnegan,
Bloodlust for terrorists is a neutral universal phenomena. Were not supposed to not have that perspective simply because the Right has it to. Thats simply superficial and hyper-reactionary. It is also taken out of context as you cant summize an entire political spectrum off of one rational (as opposed to partisan) reaction to mass murder that anyone would have. Take also for example that both the Right and the Left disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling that sorporations are entities. Your summization of cheap superficial politics is the stuff we criticize in the poli sci major. Its ignorant.

Ah, PiaTOR reverts to type. Gee, did Xtians burn witches?

Are you really unable to read?

You stated that ObL lost the right to call himself a Muslim when he started killing other Muslims.  i pointed out that Muslims have been killing other Muslims since the Sunni/Shi’ite split - just as Christians have killed Christians.

@PiaToR: I hear the idea of different narratives, but bin Laden’s problem is that the US is exploiting the hell out of the Middle East, which is getting in the way of his wanting to exploit it and do even more damage.

So, yeah, he’s not bad in his own mind.  But in his own mind, he has the right to a level of brutal exploitation that would make Dick Cheney clear his throat and shuffle his feet.  He’s not fighting for anything resembling “liberation” in our or the people with him’s eyes.  He’s fighting to replace one exploitative class with another, much nastier, exploitative class.

I’m disgusted. It’s something for someone to defend the idea that being relieved at Bin Laden being neutralized as a threat is a justifiable reaction, or defending having some shadenfreude about it, but it’s entirely something else to actually defend the idea that *bloodlust* is a defensible reaction.

After 9/11 I basically quit two online communities that were supposedly progressives because they turned into ogres baying for blood. It won’t be my first time doing so if it needs to come to this. I don’t read Free Republic and I don’t intend on reading it if it migrates into the Pandagon comment threads (as for our hostess, I may disagree on some points but I want it made clear that this is not at all directed towards her own ideas or writings.

I find it sad that I’ve never had anyone posting something objectionable on my FB even where I have contacts that are there because they’re fellow gamers and not because of any particular affinity in our ideas, and yet in one day Pandagon comments have become unreadable to me.

I also acknowledge you BlackBloc as my moral superior. Enjoy.

I don’t think this sort of operation, with this much precision, would have been possible if Bin Laden had been in a country run by people who were overtly supporting and protecting him, the way Taliban-controlled Afghanistan did.

I have to agree. Terrorists become infinitely more dangerous when they are shielded by a sovereign nation, which was the whole point of the Afghanistan invasion.

Roscoe: I don’t know if Twain said that, although it certainly sounds like him, but I do know that Clarence Darrow did in his memoirs. (Much more awkwardly, though. He really should have used a ghost writer.)

Democrat presidents have gotten us into or kept us in far more bullshit wars.
Major wars started by the Democrats: WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia.

If you look it up, you might find that the Europeans, Koreans, Vietnamese and Serbians had something to do with it.

@pablo: I don’t see where you’ve defended bloodlust but if you feel targeted I’ll defer to your better understanding of your own feelings and motivations.

#106 wrote: compared to the massive amounts of deaths going on in the 80s and 90s and now I think its fair to call it relatively stable.

Say what???

#109 wrote: Yes and the United States had nothing whatsoever to do with Afghanistan being in a state of perpetual Civil War.

SAY WHAAATTT?????  You might benefit from reviewing the history of US and Afghanistan relations long before 9/11.

shockingly enough, PiaTor is unable to actually hear what a woman is saying. He only hears what he wants to hear. Out of such small beginnings are greater things grown.

evening all.  Thought this was an excellent post by Sarah Jones:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/5-responses-bin-laden

IN the mode of Amanda’s “Get Opinionated”

Apologies if someone else has linked to this primer on how to respond to rightwing trolls re” Obama got Osama.  Admittedly did not have time to read all 182 posts.

I’m happy that he’s dead BlackBloc. While I don’t think his death accomplishes much geopolitically, I do think it is symbolic and brings a sense of closure/justice/relief/satisfaction/catharsis to the people he terrorized.  I would not sacrifice those feelings on some altar of higher principle, which I believe would also accomplish very little geopolitically. That you would make that sacrifice and that you would admonish those of us who would not, makes you our moral superior.  Me? I’m not dancing in the streets, but I won’t judge the people who are. But you go ahead and feel free to, after all you have that higher moral standard to live up to, and you shouldn’t be deprived of all happiness.

I assure you it has nothing to do with moral outrage, but a purely selfish sense of dread, apprehension and fear for my own safety that comes from living in viscinity with people who have shown themselves to both be bloodthirsty and susceptible to group think. The actual target of the hatred is quite secondary. Being reminded that people are capable of being like this is in itself a traumatising event to me (though I am always aware of it intellectually).

America duly shouldered the burden when it ascended to superpowerdom.
2. That is such self-evidently emotive and irrelevant argument that I honestly don’t feel obliged to reply to it.

As a response to the emotional spew at 151 I didn’t feel obligated to try that hard. Moreover, American interventionism is based in emotion: Although it had flirted with interventionism before WW II, WW II was when the US shouldered its burden to keep the world peace. There was no logical reason for the US to intervene in Europe’s war. That’s why British propagandists worked overtime to appeal to Americans’ emotions.

America ascended to superpowerism by default. After WW II the former empires were all spent forces. I believe GB rationed food until 1954. The Asian colonies in particular had learned they had nothing to fear from the white man whom the Japanese had so handily defeated before the US entered the war, so the colonial empires were unraveling just as fast as they could. The only country who could stop the spread of the Soviet Empire and Red China was the US, which shouldered this burden till the fall of Communism. But out of sentimentality rather than common sense, the unity of the WW II Allies was preserved in the United Nations Security Council, which remains to this day.

At that point, we might have expected the US to retreat back into isolationism, or at least the Monroe Doctrine. But no. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

So, yeah, he’s not bad in his own mind.  But in his own mind, he has the right to a level of brutal exploitation that would make Dick Cheney clear his throat and shuffle his feet.  He’s not fighting for anything resembling “liberation” in our or the people with him’s eyes.  He’s fighting to replace one exploitative class with another, much nastier, exploitative class.

By “nastier exploitive class”, you mean “justified theocracy”.  Yeah, we know it’s going to turn out bad, but Al Qaeda is motivated by the idea of a pure theocracy overthrowing corruopt secular leaders.  If I recall my Karen Armstrong, it’s a reoccurring theme in Islam.

but a purely selfish sense of dread, apprehension and fear for my own safety that comes from living in viscinity with people who have shown themselves to both be bloodthirsty and susceptible to group think

You’ll find that’s true everywhere outside of a Zen or Christian monastery, BB.

Ginmar: Except we’ve actually seen this tactic with Kaddafi and the insurgents in Iraq. And sometimes those human shields were most definitely not willing, which is what sounds like the case here.

roscoe3680: It is naive to automatically and uncritically assume that the “official” version of events presented by the American authorities must be true. It is also quite paranoid to automatically assume that what actually took place must be the exact opposite of whatever was claimed to have taken place by American authorities involved.

Uh-huh:

Bin Laden’s Wife Not Killed In Raid, White House Says

May 02, 2011 19:56 EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A woman killed during the raid of Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan was not his wife and was not used as a human shield by the al Qaeda leader before his death, a U.S. official said on Monday, correcting an earlier description.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top counter- terrorism adviser, told reporters earlier that the slain woman had been one of bin Laden’s wives and had been used—perhaps voluntarily—as a shield during the firefight.

However, a different White House official said that account had turned out not to be the case. Bin Laden’s wife was injured but not killed in the assault.

U.S. officials have said a small U.S. strike team, dropped by helicopter to bin Laden’s hide-out near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad under cover of night, shot the al Qaeda leader dead with bullets to the chest and head. He did not return fire.

@Dark Avenger: I know that but it’s not fun to be reminded.

Ya know, if there’s one thing that isn’t going on in this comments section, it’s “groupthink.”

There’s a fair amount of bloodthirsty stupidity, as well as some tribal signaling.  But I’d say a healthy dissension is definitely part of the flavoring.

I find I agree with Ben @ 29, Nil @ 20, BlackBlock, Blitzgirl and Mike Ess. 
Yeah, bin Laden is dead.  I got no problems with that, nor how it was done - the way it should have been much sooner, as a surgical strike.  But frankly, we’ve got too much work left to do cleaning up the mess people have made of things over the last decade; people too busy being emotional rather than rational. 
Great, that problem’s taken care of, what’s next?  That’s all the enthusiasm I can muster.  I’m almost as contemptuous of all the folks waving flags and screaming “We’ve got ‘im” and cheering as I am of sports fans.  My instinctive reaction - ” ‘You’ didn’t do anything.  Grow the fuck up.”  You want to look like those people? Go ahead.  Get it out of you system and blow off some steam.  Yeah, sure, I do understand.
I am not looking forward to all the idiots who will be driving around with flags on the gas-guzzling monster truck imitating “cars” (okay exaggeration) until they fall into the road or are whipped to tatters (not an exaggeration).  Un-ironically.
You think the GOP isn’t going to coop this as “the party that supports the military”?  Really?  They have a significant portion of active duty personnel believing them when they say it, despite what should be personal knowledge to the contrary.
Yes, I am a cynic some days.

@PiaToR: “justified theocracy” is always a synonym for “nastier exploited class.”

Is there a point to this other than to push moral relativism to the point where all choices are equal and we accept the fundamentally arbitrary nature of the belief that some outcomes are “better” than others?  Because I got there at 11.

#210—-what do you’re attempting to prove here? That Kaddafi is not parking his arms next to civilian targets, that insurgents did not do the same, as well as using civilians as human shields?  This has been a notable tactic for so long that it’s not even remarkable, but apparently your only thought when seeing a horse is to beat it to death and then tenderize it till it’s filet mignon.

I’m willing to bet the discussions in these interviews aren’t news to anyone here, but these were shown yesterday on tv here in Brazil. Very interesting interviews with Richard Clarke and Chalmers Johnson, in English (only the introductions are in Portuguese.)

Re Balkan nationalists and their tendency to start wars: You have probably heard about the schoolboy who. told to produce an essay about Magellan’s voyage, wrote “Started in Spain.  Ended in Spain”.  Few know, however, that he also was assigned to write a history of the 20th Century: “Started at Sarajevo.  Ended at Sarajevo.”

What I would suggest, then, helen w. h. is to examine your contempt for humans who engage in human behaviors, such as cheering for sports teams, and try and articulate why that actually makes you a better person than them. In the course of understanding why humans do what they do, there might be chance of figuring out how to turn our culture and our policy in a positive direction and disarm the darker side of human behavior, rather than sitting around and feeling superior to people because they are… humans.

Is there a point to this other than to push moral relativism to the point where all choices are equal and we accept the fundamentally arbitrary nature of the belief that some outcomes are “better” than others?

That the threat isn’t a six foot bearded wierdo, now deceased.  The threat is the appeal his words may or may not have for 1.5 billion people, and appreciating that threat requires some understanding of their point of view.

Grolby - fuck you.  Go ahead an excuse this as just human; that doesn’t make it right.  Grabbing the biggest and best is human, even if you don’t need it.  Are you going to defend that, too?
Moreover, the ghoulish coopting of the emotions and reactions of the victims of actual attacks is disgusting.
I realized that the contempt and disgust for the rah-rah idiots was surface - about 12 hours after I posted above.  What I really am is enraged that a bunch of idiots who were 15 years old or younger and had no direct impact on their lives from this specific incident (the way that was used to shape our policy though probably) - people who have never been to NYC, PA, or DC, know no one who even knew anyone on the planes or in the WTC or in the Pentagon - are using this as an excuse to party in the streets and get drunk. 
People in the greater NYC area or who lost people in actual destruction or had their lives totally turned upside-down by the effects of this or other attacks orchestrated by bin Laden have a right to any reaction they have.  I know some of these people.  I know people who lost family, lost friends, lost co-workers - more than a hundred of them. 
I know a man who had been working for the PANYNJ for nearly 3 decades and lost probably 80 percent of his department, several former co-workers, a couple of family memebers.  If he wants to have a carnival in his yard, he is entitled to it.  Being him, he will probably organize a memorial mass for the victims.  Whichever he asks me to participate in I will support.
He, and those like him, are entitled.  Unless you have some connection to this; you do not.  So again, fuck you.

God, now I feel better.  I never claimed to be superior, specifically; just not willing to childishly take credit for someone else’s accomplishments or use their pain or have any respect for those who do.

Moreover, the ghoulish coopting of the emotions and reactions of the victims of actual attacks is disgusting.

All Americans were victims of 9/11. No one, anywhere in the country, said, “Well, shit that just happened in New York and DC so fuck me if I care,” because no one knew where al-Qaeda would strike next. Americans who were children as the collapse of the towers was played over and over on TV, with OBL as the bogeyman who haunted their youth and produced their nightmares, have every right to rejoice at his death.

Helen seems intelligent—why doesn’t she get this? Why create a privileged class of direct survivors? On V-J day did the helens of that era say: “Unless you have a close family member in the service, or if one of your relatives lived under Nazi or Japanese occupation, you have no damn business celebrating”?

I’m aware of how these wars were started, but Democrat presidents have gotten us involved in said wars.

Party of peace… riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.