Osama Bin Laden Dead.

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
May 4 2011 21:00

Interesting discussion about conspiracy, but I agree with baboon. I don't think they would take the risk of faking this.
Has anyone commented on the fact that US military has already changed its account of what happened? Initially there was a firefight and bin Laden was gunned down, like it was the OK Corral (although some say that was just a massacre too, and the Earps were no better than the Clantons). He was also using one of his wives as a human shield, so that's why she was killed. Then it emerged that she hadn't been killed but shot in the leg as she ran towards bin Laden or towards one of the soldiers, in other words to protect him. And a general someone or other (I'll find the Guardian link in a bit) also admitted that he was unarmed but they shot him anyway. Now I see a thing on Yahoo saying his daughter, who was also there, claims that he was first taken prisoner and then shot. The last thing they wanted was to capture him and put him on trial
No surprises, just to be clear about how the big mobsters work.
Much as it may grieve him, I also agree with Samotnaf about the Falklands. Now that was a good example of how the bourgeoisie conspires against the workers....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change?intcmp=239

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 4 2011 21:14
NoRefunds wrote:
Don't think that our limited perspective on the political situation can at all compare to the plans of those in power. We have no idea what the bourgeois elites want when it comes to specific details.

We can make a rough estimate based on past behavior and interests involved. But even if we take your point of view, there really is no point in speculating at all.

NoRefunds wrote:
That would be a reasonable critique if it didn't contradict onsite evidence. The risk is high, I admit, and it seems crazy to me too if you think about it in a political context. But when you look at the physics of the situation, which any reasonable and intelligent person would base their analysis on, exclusively, you can easily come to the opposite conclusion. We cannot confirm or negate any conspiracy based purely on a political context. Indeed the conspiracy in El Salvador is true not because it made sense for the US to eliminate the priests but because we have evidence which proves they did. This is the same with all political theory, show me the evidence, not some a priori you think proves this or that conclusion.

What onsite evidence? The NTSB and FEMA were all over the place. The physics of it is really very simple: planes hit building causing structural damage and fires, causing further structural disintegration followed by collapse. Debris ruined at least one other building in the area. Another plane hit part of Pentagon. What is there in the "physics" of it that doesn't work out for you, exactly?

Red-Metta
Offline
Joined: 27-03-11
May 4 2011 21:51

The White House - that is Obama - is now saying that the photograps of Bin Laden's body will NOT be released, probably because the bullet wounds will tell the story of just how he was killed, if indeed, he was killed at all. I remember rumours that the Astronauts of the various Apollo missions witnessed UFO activities on their missions. NASA always claimed these stories were lies, and then, suddenly, a documentary appears featuring Buzz Aldrin talking openly about a UFO sighting, followed by a photograph of apparently the same object, taken by the crew of a later Apollo mission! At least NASA eventually provided a photograph.....

Soapy's picture
Soapy
Offline
Joined: 30-05-10
May 4 2011 22:40
Red-Metta wrote:
The White House - that is Obama - is now saying that the photograps of Bin Laden's body will NOT be released, probably because the bullet wounds will tell the story of just how he was killed, if indeed, he was killed at all. I remember rumours that the Astronauts of the various Apollo missions witnessed UFO activities on their missions. NASA always claimed these stories were lies, and then, suddenly, a documentary appears featuring Buzz Aldrin talking openly about a UFO sighting, followed by a photograph of apparently the same object, taken by the crew of a later Apollo mission! At least NASA eventually provided a photograph.....

Chomsky has pointed out how released internal government documents have discussed how it is in the government's interest to keep releasing information on the JFK assassination every 10 years so that those people who are constantly theorizing on who was really responsible for the killing will keep focusing their energies on a futile quest to find the real killer.

My point being that this discussion is fairly irrelevant

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
May 4 2011 23:32
Red-Metta wrote:
I remember rumours that the Astronauts of the various Apollo missions witnessed UFO activities on their missions. NASA always claimed these stories were lies, and then, suddenly, a documentary appears featuring Buzz Aldrin talking openly about a UFO sighting, followed by a photograph of apparently the same object, taken by the crew of a later Apollo mission! At least NASA eventually provided a photograph.....

i've read about that as well. they think it might have been a bit of the rocket that broke free, but there was no way to verify it (it was travelling alongside them at the same speed as their rocket)

moving off of that subject...
I think the important thing is not to create a narrative around a lack of proof. certainly pose the question, but don't theorise too much about it... (i'm not really accusing anyone on this thread of doing it, i'm talking generally)

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
May 4 2011 23:48

I speculate that Obama simply wanted to avoid the tremendous political migraine that would have arisen from a trial of bin-Laden. He would have been subjected to heavy pressure from his near-disillusioned liberal base to give bin-Laden a fair trial. And, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Independents and Republicans would determinedly oppose a civilian trial and state representatives would refuse to allow one within their jurisdiction. Such a row would menace the surge in his approval ratings that would come from bin-Laden's capture. So, he requested an execution and hasty disposal somewhere in the Arabian Sea. Who's going to complain about injustice to bin Laden?

Well, that's just my speculation anyway.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
May 5 2011 03:06

For the moment, I don't feel like going into all the ins and outs of a possible faking of the death (though the fact that it's "too risky" seems ridiculous as an argument: if you look at what John Nott said at the end of this debate on the Falklands invasion, you'd realise that even if things get revealed, the vast majority of people ignore these revelations and accept the dominant official line) and the ideological distortions of my point of view by some people here.

The essential thing is to look at the consequence of this show, in particular the chances of an increase in Al Quaida, and other jihadist, activity;
take, for instance, this about Nigeria:

Quote:
ABUJA-CHIEF of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Oluseyi Petirin, and the Service Chiefs, yesterday, held a marathon meeting that lasted nine hours in Abuja following strong intelligence reports of plans by some groups to use the killing of Al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, to vent their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the 2011 presidential elections and cause crisis in the country....
Sources said the calculation of those behind the plot was that after the mosque prayers of Friday, attacks would be launched on unsuspecting citizens and destruction of property would go on simultaneously in a manner that would show that Moslems are unhappy with bin Laden’s death in the hands of a predominantly Christian nation.
On Sunday May 8, it was gathered that the group would shift attention to the churches, particularly in the North and attack Christians in churches to give the impression of a holy reprisal. The goal, it was learnt, is to provoke counter attacks from Christians from other parts of the country and eventually cause chaos in the polity.

Sure, this is Nigeria, where there have already been some very nasty unpleasant and, as far as I can see, completely unrevolutionary, riots but this is the kind of thing that could spread to North Africa and elsewhere, where the fundamentalists have had no success at all so far in derailing the class struggle, but could use this as an opportunity. Plus the deaths of hostages kept by the Taliban that are very likely imo, which could provoke a wave of support for the various States of the countries from where these hostages come.

It's for this reason - the desire to intensify the War On Terror as a method of repressing the class war (and nothing to do with a trivial narrow interest in re-election on the part of a section of the bourgeoisie) - that I feel that this death, whether having already happened some time ago or, as is officially stated, just a couple of days ago, is very useful for the ruling class. Already round where i live, there's been an intensification of machine gun-toting military at stations and airports, just so we get used to feeling protected by our wonderful State.

At the beginning of the Falklands war almost everyone i knew, including myself, thought the whole thing was a joke, like something out of the Marx Brother's "Duck Soup"; it was only as the war progressed into actual deaths and propaganda, that we realised the whole seriousness of the situation, almost literally derailing the class struggle (one returning battleship had a massive banner on the side referring to an impending rail strike: "You launch a rail strike and we'll launch an air strike"; the strike was called off shortly afterwards). The constant changing of the stories and the statement that if they released a photo of his death it could provoke a wave of sympathy for him, look like a 2011 version of the semi-surrealist cock-ups in the Marx Brother's fight for Freedonia, but the joke could turn very very sour. The global situation is far more dangerous than 1982 UK, and the stakes are high: a renewal of explosive class struggle like in 1917 or 1968 globally is not what the ruling class want, particularly as their options are far more limited than in those epochs. The repression is already taking place massively in the UK and elsewhere; just imagine, after the hopes of the last few months, how it'd be if there was a return to the classic spectacle of Good v. Evil of modern capitalism v. Islamic fundamentalism, this time at a far greater extensive level.

Red-Metta
Offline
Joined: 27-03-11
May 5 2011 08:03

Bin Laden: Publishing images poses 'US security risk'

The photographs are a 'security risk', according to President Obama, and should not be shown, as they might constitute a threat to the nation. Considering that many graphic wensites exist in the USA, showing photographs of death and film footage of murders and executions, it seems rather odd that the death of the current number one enemy of the USA, can not be confirmed by photographic evidence, although certain members of the government (and other politicians) have scene these images. Considering the way US propaganda embraces violence as a cultural right, not to show photographs of one of their greatest victories, is bizarre to say the least. I have seen film footage (in colour), of US military personnel moving across a beach in the Pacific, amongst piles of Japanese dead, seeking out the wounded and shooting them in the head. No remorse or moral qualms are expressed - just like similar footage from modern wars involving US soldiers.

The operation was carried-out by Navy Seals, and one woman and three other men were also killed, but there is talk of survivors who are now in Pakistani custody. Their evidence is gold dust. The question is whether they will be seen again alive? Or, like the bullet ridden frontdoor of the Waco compound, go missing, as their existence jeopardises the 'official' story. Probably the main reason that no obvious action has been taken against Pakistan is because the West armed it with nuclear weapons. As it is, American spokespeople have said that they did not trust Pakistan, so they were not consulted during the operation. Pakistani national sovereignty has been blatantly and overtly violated, and there is virtually nothing Pakistan can do about it. Other than in terrorist related activities, that is.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
May 5 2011 09:15

Just for the record, there is already a photo doing the rounds on FB that looks fairly plausible. If it turns out to be one of the ones they will eventually release, then the current pose of "we don't want this to be floating out there" is complete baloney, as it looks like they've already leaked it.

edit: ...or then again, maybe not breakingnews.ie: 'Dead bin Laden' photo a fake

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 5 2011 09:02
Gerostock wrote:
I speculate that Obama simply wanted to avoid the tremendous political migraine that would have arisen from a trial of bin-Laden. He would have been subjected to heavy pressure from his near-disillusioned liberal base to give bin-Laden a fair trial. And, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Independents and Republicans would determinedly oppose a civilian trial and state representatives would refuse to allow one within their jurisdiction. Such a row would menace the surge in his approval ratings that would come from bin-Laden's capture. So, he requested an execution and hasty disposal somewhere in the Arabian Sea. Who's going to complain about injustice to bin Laden?

Well, that's just my speculation anyway.

I think that and if they had arrested him and put him in jail I would imagine they would figure there would be lots of tourist/aid worker kidnappings with the demand to release him all over the place, so it would be easiest to just kill him

Red-Metta
Offline
Joined: 27-03-11
May 5 2011 10:13

Officials: SEALs thought bin Laden went for weapon

This Associated Press release is remarkably coherent. It claims that the Navy Seal Team killed Bin Laden because they believed he was reaching for a weapon. On the face of it, and considering that the event was designated as a 'kill or capture' mission, one would have thought that it was a fairly high probability that Bin Laden, as an advoquate of armed resistance, would be surrounded with weaponry, and that he would try to defend himself. And yet, with all their training, and the fact that Bin Laden did not have a weapon in his hand when the Navy Seals entered his room, was something of an advantage to the Seals - and yet. whilst having total control of the situation, they still shot him. The pictures will prove this cold blooded shooting, hence their unavailability. Interestingly, this article also points out that there is absolutely NO debate in the USA about the mission,or its outcome. Apparently, the US considers Bin Laden an enemy commander, lawfully targeted by their troops. The blatant and aggressive nature of the operation raises the question as to whether the US military action in this instance, was an act of international terrorism?

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
May 5 2011 10:57

Wasn't there a South Park episode about that? The hunting party where everyone has to ritually intone "Look out! It's coming right for us!" before blasting the bunny, bird or whatever, to kingdom come.

I'm pretty sure that "Look out! He's reaching for a weapon!" is a generally accepted trope in the grittier cop shows for cops urging each other to shoot the perp even though he's got his hands up and is unarmed ("we'll plant one on him later").

Anyway...

Quote:
The blatant and aggressive nature of the operation raises the question as to whether the US military action in this instance, was an act of international terrorism?

I'm sure that's the question the powers that be would love us to be asking. For three reasons:

1) 99.999% of working class people the world over (including bin Laden supporters) don't give a flying one for the legal niceities.

from which follows...

2) To argue that the majority of w/c people are stupid not to worry about the legal niceities is to alienate yourself from the class - because it's objectively wrong, w/c people know damn well it's not the absence of liberal legalisms that are the reasons they are getting screwed. Remember "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence". Also the hyperbolisation of language is pathetic - an "act of international terrorism"? The hundreds of Pakistani civilians killed by US drone attacks - that's international terrorism, not some guy who everybody and his dog, supporters included, knew had it coming (and indeed welcomed it).

and finally, and more importantly...

3) Osama bin Laden ceased to matter many years ago. What matters today are things like the Saudi oppression of the Bahraini majority via the GCC with the tacit support of the USA. Ditto the support for the Saleh regime in Yemen, and Assad in Syria. Forget bin Laden.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
May 5 2011 11:35

I mean just go to the Guardian or BBC sites and see what's streaming in the Live Blogs now. Where for the last 2 months or so we've been getting Live blogs from the MENA uprisings, now its all Osama-shite. Goodbye Arab Spring, Western media has a better game to play now. From paying attention to what really mattered to what really doesn't matter. That's the real conspiracy right there. And all the conspiraloons that jump on the band wagon are part of the same process. Conspiraloons, want to confront the conspiracy? Look in the mirror. You are the conspiracy. The Conspiracy of Fool.

edit: hmm. maybe i need to cut down on my morning coffee intake... neutral

Red-Metta
Offline
Joined: 27-03-11
May 5 2011 13:36

Ever since the US government blamed the on the spot reporting of the world media, for its defeat in Vietnam, it has always tried to stage manage its subsequent wars. At base level, its propaganda is not that clever, which doesn't say much for the average person, because much goes completely unquestioned. The Patriot Missile that was claimed to be shooting down incoming missile in the first Gulf War, turned out to be nonesense. When the military was asked to justify its claims of 'hits', it said that it defined a 'hit' as flight paths momentarily over-lapping! Ignorance is a very effective defense and it obviously pays to keep people 'unknowing'.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
May 5 2011 15:54

There's stuff above about conspiracy theories generally and specific mention of the actions of the US in Latin America in the recent past that is included in posts above. To me the idea that the Lords of the Earth do not plot and scheme, in a word conspire, is as ludicrous as the idea that a couple of lizards are running the planet.

There's a wealth of detail of the conspiratorial nature of US imperialism in Latin America during the 20th century. The recent Wikileaks show that the Palestinian Authority was set up involving the British and Egyptian secret services as an extension of Israeli repression. This wasn't down to a strange set of coincidence and random events but real pre-planning, agendas, funding, placements and so on.

Conspiratorial action is the lifeblood of imperialism and if we put a microscope on any imperialist hot-spot we find it. Take a historical joke of a country like Laos in the 1960s: the CIA was active in setting up governments, changing governments, providing arms, logistics, etc; forced marches, massacres, generating warfare, gangsterism and heroin production. The same had previously applied to the French ruling class in Indo-China and the same applied to every major area of the region.

In the aftermath of WWII, the US government, its secret services agencies, the trade unions, the Corsican and Italian mafias were all active in actions, some closely coordinated, against the working class and for the needs of post-war US imperialism. Again there's a wealth of detail available just around the question of the important port Marseille alone.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
May 5 2011 16:44

But there's a difference between covert operations and the conspiracy theories that agglutinate around events like the JFK assassination, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. The latter are reactions to mediatised spectacular events that consist of directing the imagination to why "the official story" must be a lie. Because these reactions are entirely media spectacle-driven, they are open to being led around by the nose.

Conspiracy theory takes true elements (that governments lie to the media and people, that the state has agencies that engage in covert ioperations) and uses them as building blocks, mixed with the mortar of the paranoiac imagination, to construct a fantasical superstructure to defend psyches threatened by the existential angst of a world without god or other forms of caring, potent authority. The problem is alienation and lack of real political analysis.

The media create a huge spectacle that Osama has been killed? Therefore, immediately, either he is alive, or else he was already dead. It must be so. Now to look for the evidence or concoct it. Imagination as negation.

Whereas sceptical imagination can easily see where all these fanstastical constructs fall apart on contact with the challanges of reality. Conspiracy is just the spectacle in the mode of being denied. As such it is an obstacle to autonomous critical thought, and has nothing to offer the project of recomposing workers power.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
May 5 2011 18:17

ocelot: you seem to be as dogmatic as the conspiracy theorists, and to be merely reactive to them. In all my posts, at least, (and No Refund's as well, as far as I can see) i have presented the idea of Osama's death well before May 2nd as a possibility and have given reasons as to why they might have decided that now was a good time to present this massive spectacle (to distract from the chance of exploding class struggle). All you've done is apply a general critique of conspiracy theories, which is generally correct, to the possibility that this particular event didn't happen just a couple of days ago and have tried to fit all theories about this possibility as part of the conspiraloon mentality. This critique of obsessive conspiracy theory loons has nothing to do with any posts I've seen here. And for the moment, you and everybody else so far have ignored my post 97 this morning, where I hardly even mention this possibility but concentrate on how this spectacle is being used and could in the future be used. As I have done before. It seems like it's you who's being an anticonspiracy loon almost as much as conspiracy theory loons. It seems you've got an ideology through which you ignore what's being said .

ryuit
Offline
Joined: 26-02-11
May 5 2011 23:30

I should start this post by declaring myself as guilty as anyone on this feed of doing this but the point is not whether it is or is not a conspiracy, its the fact that this is what's being talked about. This is the main focus of discussion for most people and that's fantastic as far as the ruling classes are concerned.

Quote:
I mean just go to the Guardian or BBC sites and see what's streaming in the Live Blogs now. Where for the last 2 months or so we've been getting Live blogs from the MENA uprisings, now its all Osama-shite. Goodbye Arab Spring, Western media has a better game to play now. From paying attention to what really mattered to what really doesn't matter. That's the real conspiracy right there

Completely and utterly correct. Suppose Samotnaf is right (not ignoring the fact that you are only hypothesizing) and bin Laden has been dead for months, what difference does it make? The government lies and uses the lies to conduct class war against its citizens and those of other countries. Do you really need this one event to show you that that is the case? Regardless of whether it is a conspiracy or not the event is being used to shape the world agenda and as long as we focus on the fine details of an event which may or may not have taken place and doesn't matter either way we are only fucking with ourselves

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
May 6 2011 02:18
Quote:
Suppose Samotnaf is right (not ignoring the fact that you are only hypothesizing) and bin Laden has been dead for months, what difference does it make?

It doesn't make much difference; as I said

Quote:
this death, whether having already happened some time ago or, as is officially stated, just a couple of days ago, is very useful for the ruling class. Already round where i live, there's been an intensification of machine gun-toting military at stations and airports, just so we get used to feeling protected by our wonderful State.
At the beginning of the Falklands war almost everyone i knew, including myself, thought the whole thing was a joke, like something out of the Marx Brother's "Duck Soup"; it was only as the war progressed into actual deaths and propaganda, that we realised the whole seriousness of the situation, almost literally derailing the class struggle (one returning battleship had a massive banner on the side referring to an impending rail strike: "You launch a rail strike and we'll launch an air strike"; the strike was called off shortly afterwards). The constant changing of the stories and the statement that if they released a photo of his death it could provoke a wave of sympathy for him, look like a 2011 version of the semi-surrealist cock-ups in the Marx Brother's fight for Freedonia, but the joke could turn very very sour. The global situation is far more dangerous than 1982 UK, and the stakes are high: a renewal of explosive class struggle like in 1917 or 1968 globally is not what the ruling class want, particularly as their options are far more limited than in those epochs. The repression is already taking place massively in the UK and elsewhere; just imagine, after the hopes of the last few months, how it'd be if there was a return to the classic spectacle of Good v. Evil of modern capitalism v. Islamic fundamentalism, this time at a far greater extensive level.

It would be more useful focussing on these developments. And look out for an intensification of Taliban or AlQuaida activity, particularly in those areas of class war where so far they have had no influence whatsoever:

Quote:
The death of Osama bin Laden has been followed by demonstrations in places like Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
But the killing has had nothing to do with the marches.
In fact, few protesters seem to view the al-Qaida leader as a Martyr.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
May 6 2011 03:30

My favourite bit is when they shot him in the face and dumped him in the sea, "out of respect for Islamic tradition."

Red-Metta
Offline
Joined: 27-03-11
May 6 2011 07:27

On the BBC2 Newsnight programme, last night, a US spokesperson was asked, in the light of the US military incursion into Pakistan, whether, if there was a terrorist attack in Pakistan, and a suspect was hiding-out in South Dakota, would the US tolerate a foreign military presence on its sovereign territory? He replied 'No', and acted as if he couldn't see the connection between the actual US military raid into Pakistan, and the hypothetical situation being presented to him. His general demeanour was arrogant and smug, and appeared not to understand how anyone outside of the USA could possibly censure the US, for the killing of Bin Laden. For him, any question of legality was literally superceded by the fact that he thought that the US had now made the world a safer place! The interview was telling.

Osama Bin Laden 'planned 9/11 anniversary train attack'

To add to general air of dismissive childishness displayed by US foreign policy, the above article now informs us - just when our belief in the 'rightness' of Bin Laden's death is fading - that the nasty, evil Bin Laden was planning a 9/11 anniversary attack, possibly aboard a train! It sounds to me, very much like the plot of the recent film Source Code, and is being used because it currently resonates in the minds of people at the moment. As an advocate of terrorism, and a supporter of anti-Western sentiment, it is highly probable that Bin Laden had many theoretical plans, some practical, some not. The stage managing of the news can be seen clearly. Forthe average American, this is enough, and I am reminded of the Family Guy episode which featires Lois Griffin running for Mayor - all she has to say was '9/11' to every American audience, and their attention and support is instantly attained! Whenever she tries to address real issues, the light fades in their eyes, and they nolonger care.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
May 6 2011 15:26

According to Sky News, al-Qaida has confirmed that Osama is brown bread and is vowing to fight on.

Every national ruling class seems to be trying to profit from this event to promote their own versions of "order". The British bourgeoisie for example has been distancing itself for some time from the USA's "War on Terror". Now there's a drip of leaks from the government that says in future terrorism and terrorists will not be defined by "Islamism" but by being against core British values which, according to today's Guardian, include being "against democracy, equality and renouncing the support for violence".

Matt_efc
Offline
Joined: 13-02-07
May 6 2011 15:37

Where is that Guardian article?

Do you think thats an attempt to move the threat of terror from fundamentalism towards something far more "enemy within" more political, or was it just suggesting that "Islamism" is dispersing into plenty of different connected but almost unrelated strands?

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
May 6 2011 15:45

Page 13, "Anti-terror strategy".

The British state has long used Islamic terrorism, jihadism, as part of its arsenal in inter-imperialist rivalries, hence the appelation "Londonistan" given to it by its French and German rivals and the news last week that an Algerian jihadist was still working for the British secret services.
Terrorism, the war on terror, has been used to strengthen the repressive apparatus of the British (and other) state for some time. But I think that we will see the continuation and deepening of the "threat of terrorism" applying to the "enemy within" and particularly to militant, revolutionary elements.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
May 6 2011 15:47

Red-Metta:

Quote:
any question of legality was literally superceded by the fact that he thought that the US had now made the world a safer place!

This is something you bring up constantly; an earlier reference by you to "legality" was responded to, quite rightly, by ocelot saying:

Quote:
1) 99.999% of working class people the world over (including bin Laden supporters) don't give a flying one for the legal niceities.
from which follows...
2) To argue that the majority of w/c people are stupid not to worry about the legal niceities is to alienate yourself from the class - because it's objectively wrong, w/c people know damn well it's not the absence of liberal legalisms that are the reasons they are getting screwed.

You didn't respond to these points of his. Who cares about bourgeois legality in these cases? The Gulf War of 1991 was perfectly legal, and so were the subsequent vicious sanctions. Did that make them ok? Of course not: legality might be useful to appeal to if you're contesting an illegal arrest or eviction or whatever (rather like having an insurance policy on where you live), but otherwise it's just a liberal-lefty moral notion that somehow the organisation of conflict between States and other powers can be settled by some appeal to the law as an external authority.

Red-Metta
Offline
Joined: 27-03-11
May 6 2011 17:36
Samotnaf wrote:
Who cares about bourgeois legality in these cases? .

The powers that be, that constantly use the notion of 'legality' as the moral justification for their actions, when the very legal code they have created is obviously being ignored, manipulated, distorted or misrepresented, as has been evident since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which has led to the West desparately searching for new enemies to justify the military-industrial complex. Bin Laden - armed, trained and encouraged by the West (against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), along with Saddam Hussein (funded, armed and encouraged by the West in his war against Iran), became public enemies over night. Gaddaffi probably pre-dates these new enemies, etc, the list can go on and on.

It is not 'law' that is the issue, but hypocracy in its application. Those subject to arbitrary execution, imprisonment, torture, deportation, poverty, and starvation, etc, to mention just a short list of injustices, are already experiencing 'lawlessness'. It would seem a self-evident truth that those suffering lawlessness, would benefit from a just system of law, administered fairly. Unless, of course, a situation was created that did not involve the requirement of 'law', and that, at the sametime avoided the pitfall of 'lawlessness'. From a philosophical perspective, this could happen, as 'lawfulness' and 'unlawfulness' create one another in a cycle of 'stability' - 'instability', one state containing the opposite within its structure. Breaking free of this model is the key, but the forces I am writing about exist fully within this structure.

Finally, ocelot's sound points, are not your points.

NoRefunds's picture
NoRefunds
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
May 6 2011 17:02
Tojiah wrote:
What onsite evidence? The NTSB and FEMA were all over the place. The physics of it is really very simple: planes hit building causing structural damage and fires, causing further structural disintegration followed by collapse. Debris ruined at least one other building in the area. Another plane hit part of Pentagon. What is there in the "physics" of it that doesn't work out for you, exactly?

If you really want I could respond to this, but it would take a large amount of room and shift the discussion from what we're currently talking about. I'd prefer not to do that. I also accept that "who did 911" is is an irrelivent question not because of what it reflects, which is shocking, but simply because there are litterally thousands of other examples that show the nature of US imperialism without the need to relentlessly argue about conspiracy or not.

I agree entirley with Samotnaf. On top of that if you guys are paying attention to Red Metta's posts, this story is becoming increasingly filled with bull shit. The glass is half empty.

Red-Metta
Offline
Joined: 27-03-11
May 6 2011 17:34
NoRefunds wrote:
I agree entirley with Samotnaf. On top of that if you guys are paying attention to Red Metta's posts, this story is becoming increasingly filled with bull shit. The glass is half empty.

So much for the intellectual left. This kind of pointless infighting is exactly why the left is in a state of permanent rupture, disguised as unity, and masquerading as 'debate'. Nothing will come of it, as indeed nothing ever does. The net is not real life, and it becomes counter-productive, having to construct written posts around negative psychology. These posters appear to win by stifling true debate and shouting the loudest, so be it. The problems with the left will, unfortunately, continue.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
May 6 2011 17:48

Red-Metta: I think you misunderstood NoRefunds post: I'd guess he was talking about the official story of the death of Bin Laden, not what you've been saying yourself about these stories.
However, your appeal for "unity " seems like an appeal to shut up about differences in perspective. Pannekoek said the working class isn't weak because it's divided, it's divided because it's weak. A clash of views is part of a struggle against false forms of unity (besides, the whole notion of belonging to a "left", when historically the left has usually meant the old Stalinist parties, or the Trots or the Labour Party or some other horrible State capitalist perspective, has nothing to do with my identity; though maybe you don't mean this notion of "the left").

About your earlier post (#116):
I talked about conflict being

Quote:
settled by some appeal to the law as an external authority.

or you could talk about "settled by some appeal to justice as an external authority." Hierarchical power is inevitably hypocritical, inevitably unfair, and it's something i began to learn consciously (ie could begin to understand its social reasons) several decades ago, way before

Quote:
the collapse of the Soviet Union

. Class society has always involved elements of

Quote:
arbitrary execution, imprisonment, torture, deportation, poverty, and starvation

Yes, it's fundamentally horrible but to simply complain about the hypocrisy without being explicit about its reasons and its material base is an appeal to some nicey nicey external notion of fairness, ie an appeal to, say, the UN or some hypothetical state to resolve the contradictions that arise from the power of existing states or whatever hierachical organisation you'd wish to name; but justice comes from below , from the authority of the struggles at the bottom of the hierarchy. I don't give a toss whether Bin Laden was killed legally or not, any more than I'd give a toss about whether Cameron, Obama or whichever State terrorist was killed legally or not?! The question of law in this instance is irrelevant.
Maybe you know this, but think it's important to appeal to some outside notion of morality in order to be acceptable. That's what your argument seems like to me. But real justice is unacceptable to all those who are either directly involved in maintaining this society or to those who imagine they could become the "good neutral" form of "justice" in some future State or a modification of existing States. Real justice doesn't care for legal niceties (except as a practical reformist necessity in certain instances if such legal niceties work).

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
May 6 2011 19:20

I'm assuming they're saving the photo for a special occasion they've published photos of the bloodied corpses of the other three men killed. The argument about a weapon could have been avoided by simply saying he had one. It does suggest to me that it is true but who knows.

I don't dispute the dishonesty of the ruling classes nor the ability of people to overlook clear evidence of this (everything done by the CIA in the 80s for a start). But without any evidence conspiracies do look ridiculous.