i dont know about anyone else.........
.......... but

all this news everywhere i turn too, on line , news paper, tv, radio...... people all rejoicing in Osama dead....

makes me think of this.........

Killing One Monster, Unleashing Another: Reflections on Revenge and Revelry


Tim Wise


May 2, 2011, 8:15 pm

There is a particularly trenchant scene in the documentary film, Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead, in which Blecker - who teaches at New York University School of Law and is the nation's most prominent pro-death penalty scholar - travels to Tennessee's Riverbend Prison for the execution of convicted murderer, Daryl Holton. Blecker is adamant that Holton, who murdered his own children, deserves to die for his crime. Yet, when he gets to the prison on the evening of Holton's electrocution, Blecker is disturbed not only by the anti-death penalty forces whom he views as dangerously naive, but also by those who have come to literally cheer the state-sponsored killing. He agrees with their ultimate position, but can't understand why they feel the need to celebrate death, to party as a life is taken. The event is somber, he tries to tell them. Human life is precious, he insists; so precious, in Blecker's mind, that occasionally we must take the lives of killers so as to reinforce that respect for human life. But there is no reason to revel in the death of another, he tries to explain. While I disagree with Blecker on the matter of the death penalty, I felt sympathy for him in that moment, trying to thread the needle between advocacy of killing - any killing - and the retention of the nuance that allows the supporter of such a thing to still preach about the sanctity of life. It was a nice attempt, and heartfelt.
Of course, his pleas for solemnity fall on deaf ears. His ideological compatriots cannot comprehend him. They even misunderstand his position on the ultimate issue, presuming at first that his unwillingness to cheer the death of one as evil as Holton means he must oppose the death penalty, and that he doesn't care about the children Holton killed. Ultimately, Blecker walks away, clearly shaken, not in his support for capital punishment, but by the way in which others on his own side seem to literally glorify death, even need it.
I was reminded of this scene today, while watching coverage of the celebrations around the country (but especially in Washington D.C. and Manhattan), which began last night when it was announced that Osama bin Laden was dead. In front of the White House were thousands of affluent and overprivileged (and mostly white) college students from George Washington University (among the nation's most expensive schools), partying like it was spring break. Never needing an excuse to binge drink, the GW and Georgetown co-eds responded to the news of bin Laden's death as though their team had just won the Final Four. That none of them would have had the guts to actually go and fight the war that they seem to support so vociferously - after all, a stint in the military might disrupt their plans to work on Wall Street, or to become high-powered lawyers, or just get in the way of their spring formal - matters not, one supposes. They have other people to do the hard work for them. They always have.
In New York, the throngs assembled may have been more economically diverse, but the revelry was similar. Lots of flags, chants of "U.S.A., U.S.A.," and an overall "rah-rah" attitude akin to that which one might experience at a BCS Bowl game, and once again, mostly led by guys who would never, themselves, have gone to war, to get bin Laden or anyone else.
You have to wonder - or actually, you don't because the answer is so distressingly obvious - would these throngs pour into the streets to celebrate in this fashion if it were announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered, or for AIDS? Would thousands of people be jumping up and down belting out patriotic chants if the president were to announce that our country's scientists had found a new, affordable method for wiping out all childhood disease, malnutrition or malaria in poor countries around the world? Though these maladies kill far more than Osama bin Laden ever dreamt of slaughtering, and although any of these developments would be a source of intense pride for millions, there is almost no chance that they would be met with drunken revelry. Partying is what we do when we kill people, when we beat someone, when we grind them to dust. It is not what we do when we save lives or end suffering. Saving lives or doing humanitarianism is like making love, while killing people is tantamount to a good, hard, and largely one-sided fuck; and unfortunately we know which of these two things men, in particular, are more apt to prefer.
Don't get me wrong: I am not a pacifist. I know there are times when violence may be necessary, either in self-defense, vicarious defense of others, or to prevent greater violence. If you were to break into my house and attempt to harm my family, let there be no misunderstanding: you would die, and I would kill you, without so much as a moment's hesitation. But I would not, upon having taken your life (however justified), proceed to pop a cold one, invite friends over and dance around your bloody body. I would not be happy about what I had done. Taking a life, even when you have no choice, is no cause for joy. It is a grave and serious event; and it is utterly unnatural, such that militaries the world over have to dehumanize their enemies and work furiously to break down their soldiers' natural human tendencies to not kill. The fact that violence may be necessary in certain cases, and even in the case of stopping bin Laden, cannot, in and of itself justify raucous celebrations of his death at the hands of the United States.
So yes, we can argue that bin Laden deserved to die. But that's the easy part. Beyond what one deserves, whether they be terrorists or just street criminals, there is the matter of what society needs. And it may be that what a healthy society needs is less bombastic rhetoric, less celebratory embrace of violence, and less jingoistic nationalism, even if that means that we have to respond to the news of bin Laden's death with a more muted tone, perhaps being thankful in private, or even drinking a toast with friends in our own homes, but not turning the matter into public spectacle, the likes of which cheapens matters of life and death to little more than a contest whose results can be tallied on a scoreboard.
It may prove cathartic that one the likes of bin Laden is dead. His death may provide an opportunity for a much-needed exhaling; but that doesn't render it the proper subject of a pep rally. And given the larger need to challenge the mentality of disposability that is at the root of all murderous violence, it may be that in such moments we would be far better off to solemnly commemorate the death of the monster than to cheer it openly, when the latter is so likely to inflame passions on the part of those whose allegiance to the monster remained unsullied right to the end.
Ultimately, the mentality of human disposability that animates war, terrorism, gang violence and all forms of homicidal street crime, is a dangerous one to indulge, and certainly to indulge giddily. Such a mindset feeds upon itself, perpetuates itself without end, and serves to ratify the same in others. Surely we should strive to do better, even when, for various reasons, we can't manage it, and are required to take life for one reason or another. Most soldiers, after all, are not happy or self-satisfied about the things they've done in war. For many, if not most, killing even when you have no choice, is life-changing. It scars. It comes back in the middle of the night, haunting the soldier's dreams for years, and sometimes forever. We do not honor them or their sacrifices by treating the mortal decisions they so often have to make as if they were no more gut-wrenching than those made during the playing of a video game.
Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than the celebrations unleashed in the wake of bin Laden's demise was the cynical way in which the president suggested that his killing proved "America can do whatever we set our mind to." If this is, indeed, the lesson of bin Laden's death, then this only suggests we clearly don't want to diminish, let alone end, child poverty, excess mortality rates in communities of color, rape and sexual assault of women (including the many thousands who have been victimized in the U.S. military), or food insecurity for millions of families; because we aren't addressing any of those things with nearly the aplomb as that put to warfare and the killing of our adversaries.
We are, if the president is serious here, a nation that has narrowly constricted its marketable talents to the deployment of violence. We can't manufacture much of anything, but we can kill you. We can't fix our schools, or build adequate levees to protect a city like New Orleans from floodwaters. But we can kill you. We can't reduce infant mortality to anywhere near the level of other industrialized nations with which we like to compare ourselves. But we can kill you. We can't break the power of Wall Street bankers, or jail any of those bankers and money managers who helped orchestrate the global financial collapse. But we can kill you. We can't protect LGBT youth from bullying in schools, or ensure equal opportunity for all in the labor market, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other factor. But we can kill you. Booyah, bitches.
But somewhere, I suspect, there is a young child - maybe the age of one of my own - who is sitting in front of a television tonight in Karachi, or Riyadh. And he's watching footage of some fraternity boy, American flag wrapped around his back, cheering the death of one who this child believes, for whatever fucked up reason, is a hero, and now, a martyr.
And I know that this child will likely do what all such children do; namely, forget almost nothing, remember almost everything, and plan for the day when he will make you remember it too, and when you will know his name. And if (or when) that day comes, the question will be, was your party worth it?

Originally Posted by Novelafemme (Post 331864) "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Originally Posted by Nat (Post 332166) I'm not sure if this has already been said, but late last night I found out this quote was misattributed to Martin Luther King Jr. I wanted to set the record straight because I backed this quote up by providing part of an actual speech by him - and I never doubted that this quoted quote was made up. **takes bite of humble pie** http://mashable.com/2011/05/03/altered-mlk-quote/

Originally Posted by Toughy (Post 332816) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_geronimo Senate official: Wrong to link bin Laden, Geronimo The top staffer for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is objecting to the U.S. military's use of the code name "Geronimo" for Osama bin Laden during the raid that killed the al-Qaida leader. Geronimo was an Apache leader in the 19th century who spent many years fighting the Mexican and U.S. armies until his surrender in 1886. Loretta Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday it was inappropriate to link Geronimo, whom she called "one of the greatest Native American heroes," with one of the most hated enemies of the United States."These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating," Tuell said. Tuell is a member of the Nez Perce tribe and grew on the tribe's reservation in Idaho. The Senate Indian Affairs panel had previously scheduled a hearing for Thursday on racial stereotypes of native people. Tuell said the use of Geronimo in the bin Laden raid will be discussed. Steven Newcomb, a columnist for the weekly newspaper Indian Country Today, criticized what he called a disrespectful use of a name revered by many Native Americans. "Apparently, having an African-American president in the White House is not enough to overturn the more than 200-year American tradition of treating and thinking of Indians as enemies of the United States," Newcomb wrote. After bin Laden was killed, the military sent a message back to the White House: "Geronimo EKIA" — enemy killed in action. "It's another attempt to label Native Americans as terrorists," said Paula Antoine of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota. A White House spokesman referred questions about the code name to the Pentagon. A Defense Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Jefferson Keel, president of National Congress of American Indians, the largest organization representing American Indians and Alaska Natives, said, "Osama bin Laden was a shared enemy." Keel said that since 2001, 77 American Indians and Alaskan Natives have died defending the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 400 have been wounded.

Originally Posted by Mister Bent (Post 332873) "They say that revenge is a dish that's best served cold. We've been waiting a long time for this particular dish to cool, and now that I've eaten it, I'm surprised to find that it's pretty tasteless and unsatisfying." This article succinctly sums it up for me; acknowledging that bin Laden's death was, effectively, mere retaliation. We gain nothing. We are not safer, no troops are coming home, the waste that was the war in Iraq (where were the weapons of mass destruction? Did we end or even deter terrorism as a result?) can't be erased. Ten years later, I feel none of the righteous joy that I expected. It mostly just fills me with grief for all the deaths between then and now that should never have happened. I'm glad we've taken a terrorist out of circulation, of course. But maybe because I'm older, and mortality seems all too depressingly real, I find it hard to celebrate anyone's death--no, not even Bin Laden's. The families of the victims deserved some satisfaction, of course, and a certainly hope they got it. But these days, all of humanity seems so fragile to me, the universes of our minds so easily destroyed. No matter how much Team Death deserves to win, I find it hard to cheer when the Grim Reaper does his victory dance in the end zone. Don't get me wrong: I do not think killing Bin Laden was morally or even tactically wrong. I just think it's profoundly unsatisfying. We won't recover any of the things that he took from us, or even the things we took from ourselves, like the ability to travel around the country without being treated like a potential terrorist. Destroying Osama did not unmake him, which is what I really wanted. He may be dead, but we're still living with him. (Emphasis mine.)

Originally Posted by Ebon (Post 332961) Just out of curiosity, does anyone know when and how did they get the original DNA sample to match it against the DNA's of dead Osama?

Originally Posted by Mister Bent (Post 332873) "They say that revenge is a dish that's best served cold. We've been waiting a long time for this particular dish to cool, and now that I've eaten it, I'm surprised to find that it's pretty tasteless and unsatisfying." This article succinctly sums it up for me; acknowledging that bin Laden's death was, effectively, mere retaliation. We gain nothing. We are not safer, no troops are coming home, the waste that was the war in Iraq (where were the weapons of mass destruction? Did we end or even deter terrorism as a result?) can't be erased. Ten years later, I feel none of the righteous joy that I expected. It mostly just fills me with grief for all the deaths between then and now that should never have happened. I'm glad we've taken a terrorist out of circulation, of course. But maybe because I'm older, and mortality seems all too depressingly real, I find it hard to celebrate anyone's death--no, not even Bin Laden's. The families of the victims deserved some satisfaction, of course, and a certainly hope they got it. But these days, all of humanity seems so fragile to me, the universes of our minds so easily destroyed. No matter how much Team Death deserves to win, I find it hard to cheer when the Grim Reaper does his victory dance in the end zone. Don't get me wrong: I do not think killing Bin Laden was morally or even tactically wrong. I just think it's profoundly unsatisfying. We won't recover any of the things that he took from us, or even the things we took from ourselves, like the ability to travel around the country without being treated like a potential terrorist. Destroying Osama did not unmake him, which is what I really wanted. He may be dead, but we're still living with him. (Emphasis mine.)

Originally Posted by Ebon (Post 332961) Just out of curiosity, does anyone know when and how did they get the original DNA sample to match it against the DNA's of dead Osama?

TRALEE PEARCE From Friday's Globe and Mail Published Thursday, May. 05, 2011 4:17PM EDT In the hours and days after Osama bin Laden’s death, television screens were filled with images of smiling Americans – many with their children in tow – flocking to the White House and the World Trade Center site to wave flags and cheer the death of an enemy. One mother in Pennsylvania sent her son to elementary school with his face painted with the American flag and the date of Mr. bin Laden’s death. (She chose to take him home rather than comply with the school’s demand that he wash it off.) The elated response gave many observers, including some Canadian parents, a queasy feeling about the moral implications of cheering revenge, especially for kids. Parents and educators had the worst kind of teachable moment on their hands: the kind without a clear-cut lesson. A known world terrorist was dead. That’s good, right? Our side killed him. Is that good? Or kind of sad, too? Psychologists suggest the case could be confusing to children who are just starting to set their moral compasses. Kids can interpret the jubilant reactions to mean that if someone hurts them or their family, it’s okay to hurt them back, Washington-based psychologist Marilyn Price-Mitchell pointed out. New Yorker Denene Millner blogged about telling her two daughters the news while trying to be sensitive. As she wrote on My Brown Baby, the news hit very close to home, but she called gleeful reactions “disgusting.”

Originally Posted by AtLastHome (Post 333497) So many folks seem to have very little knowledge about his history and only focus on 9/11. I have talked with people in real time many times that believe he was some kind of hero of the common people brought up with nothing. He received an education in elite schools and had access to billions of dollars.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503 (Post 333509) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle2011561/ To me his death is neither here nor there. Whatever threat he may have posed was created by the US itself when it chose to intervene on the side of "freedom fighters" (aka extremists) during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Unfortunately these mistakes are being repeated in Libya in particular. Instead of rejoicing over the death, maybe people should take this time to truly think about the effects of their actions, how American imperialist intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere has caused so much death and very little good whatsoever (and now Western power in general in Libya). How about learning from past mistakes instead of rejoicing over the death of a American made enemy and on the other side claiming how America is in the "right." That would evidently be asking too much. On a side note, all this "god bless america" stuff makes me a bit queasy, really. That's so problematic I don't even know where to begin. Probably left over from his elevation to "freedom fighter" by the US during the Soviet years.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503 (Post 333509) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle2011561/ To me his death is neither here nor there. Whatever threat he may have posed was created by the US itself when it chose to intervene on the side of "freedom fighters" (aka extremists) during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Unfortunately these mistakes are being repeated in Libya in particular. Instead of rejoicing over the death, maybe people should take this time to truly think about the effects of their actions, how American imperialist intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere has caused so much death and very little good whatsoever (and now Western power in general in Libya). How about learning from past mistakes instead of rejoicing over the death of a American made enemy and on the other side claiming how America is in the "right." That would evidently be asking too much. On a side note, all this "god bless america" stuff makes me a bit queasy, really. That's so problematic I don't even know where to begin. Probably left over from his elevation to "freedom fighter" by the US during the Soviet years.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC (Post 333779) Apologies in advance. I normally read all the way through a thread before I post, but I'm on painkillers due to an accident, and I just don't have enough continuity of thought at this time. I confess to having merely skimmed this thread, but I wanted to post my experiences here, anyway. I live in a Brooklyn neighbourhood notable for it's Lower Manhattan views. Every time I see my amputated skyline I still don't recognise it, even nearly 10 years later. The attacks of 9/11 changed my city in so many ways I can't begin to name them, and none of those changes were positive. I didn't personally lose anyone in those attacks, but I lost my city as I knew it, and I took it all very personally. I've been following bin Laden's career in terrorism since early in the Clinton administration. He was responsible for a great many horrible crimes. I knew instantly that he was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 since they bore his signature style. Like many, I rolled my eyes at Bush Jr's cowboy rhetoric following the attack, ("You can run, but you can't hide." Remember?), but I actually expected him to follow through on that promise. Silly me. I was disgusted and appalled when it became increasingly obvious over the next year that Bush had no intention of capturing Osama bin Laden, and was instead using our loss as a pretext to attack Iraq, a country that had never attacked us. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but he wasn't the bad guy who attacked us. That bad guy was laughing his ass off at us while we spent our resources and precious young lives chasing his sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein. And we looked like a bunch of ignorant bigots who couldn't tell one Arab from another. I saw the failure to capture bin Laden as a clear issue of criminal justice. I became increasingly horrified that my money was about to be used to wage an illegal and immoral war, so I did the only thing I could think of. Almost a year and a half after 9/11 I put up a sign in front of my house. It was a day-counter that asked one simple question. This past Sunday night my sign read: 9 years, 232 days since 9/11/01 WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? I changed the number on my sign every morning since the first day I put it up nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago. When I went on vacation, (or on an unexpected journey to the hospital after my recent accident), my wonderful neighbours changed the number for me. The sign had become sort of iconic in my funky artist's neighbourhood, and my neighbours were very supportive of the message. My sign was both a vigil and a daily protest. I asked the question because no one else was asking. I counted the days because it was unconscionable to me that this criminal was at large for so long. I deliberately made the simplest sign possible because I had one important question, and I didn't want anything to distract from it. For the last 9 years and 232 days no one in the mainstream press or in the criminal Bush administration seemed to care very much about the answer. The phone started ringing on Sunday night and it didn't stop for days. My wonderful neighbours helped me take my sign down on Monday morning. I had no idea at the time that it was about to become part of the mainstream media coverage of bin Laden. Some reporters called first, but many just showed up and knocked on my door. ALL DAY. And all day Tuesday, too. Interviews and pictures of my sign ended up in at least 6 newspapers including the NY Times, and some radio and television spots as well. I was sorely tempted to ask all those reporters where they had been for the last 9 years and 232 days, but I decided to stay on-point instead. The recent accident that sent me to the hospital was quite serious, (18 broken bones including a shattered pelvis that needed 8 hours of surgery to rebuild), and I worked my butt off to get 'paroled' from the rehab facility on Saturday. Yay for me. DAMN, it's good to be home! I'm just so very glad that I was home in time to take my sign down on Monday morning. I think I would have chewed my arm off in frustration had I still been incarcerated in rehab. The really good thing that came out of all this is that my simple sign, with all it's cracks and peeling paint, is going to the permanent collection of the 9/11 Museum which will open in the basement of the new WTC in 2012. (On a personal note, I have to say that I'm NOT AT ALL HAPPY to have had so many published pictures of me on crutches and wearing my hideous white plastic clamshell body brace and one unnaturally swollen thigh. Ugh.) There's been a great deal of soul searching about what it means to rejoice over bin Laden's death. Some have been arguing that his demise makes no real difference. I wish more people would remember that this is about criminal justice. I don't celebrate in the streets when any other murderer is captured, and I have no illusions that taking one murderer off the street will end all crime. Criminal justice is about holding each person responsible for their crimes. The person who murdered 3,000 of my neighbours and changed my city forever is no longer at large. There will be other mass murderers, but this was about one man and his crimes. My question was answered. I'm happy to have been able to take down my sign.

Originally Posted by AtLastHome (Post 333783) Thank you so much for this post. And I hope you have a speedy recovery. This is an amazing story and the part about your neighbors is great.

Originally Posted by AtLastHome (Post 333609) Although I agree with the imperial nature the US has played all over the world and it is not something I am proud of- all Western nations have contributed to very disrespectful treatment of various regions and continue to.

PS- I did see your mention on the Western powers involvement in Libya (UN). Sometimes I wonder if a strong multi-country aliance could be built among just people- and have some effect on all of these countries. An internation aliance with an understanding of how we all contribute to these insane acts against other countries. I knmow, I'm an idealist.

The Revenge Killing of Osama bin Laden Tuesday 31 May 2011 by: Noam Chomsky, Truthout The May 1 U.S. attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound violated multiple elementary norms of in ternational law, beginning with the in vasion of Pakistani territory. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by the 79 commandos facing almost no opposition. President Obama announced that “justice has been done.” Many did not agree – even close allies. British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who generally supported the operation, nevertheless described Obama’s claim as an “absurdity” that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law. Pakistani and international law require inquiry “whenever violent death occurs from government or police action,” Robertson points out. Obama undercut that possibility with a “hasty ‘burial at sea’ without a post mortem, as the law requires.” “It was not always thus,” Robertson usefully reminds us, "When the time came to con sider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden – namely the Nazi leadership – the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. “President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson (chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial) that summa ry execution ‘would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride ... the only course is to deter mine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear.”’ An other perspective on the attack comes in a report in The Atlantic by veteran Middle East and military correspondent Yochi Dreazen and colleagues. Citing a “senior U.S. official,” they conclude that the bin Laden killing was a planned assassination. “For many at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency who had spent nearly a decade hunting bin Laden, killing the militant was a necessary and justified act of vengeance,” they write. Further more, “capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges.” They quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who commented that “the U.S. raid was ‘quite clearly a violation of international law’ and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial.” They contrast Schmidt with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who “defended the decision to kill bin Laden al though he didn’t pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs,” and testified to Congress that the assault had been “lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.” They observe further that the assassination is “the clearest illustration to date” of a crucial distinction between the Bush and Obama counter terror policies. Bush captured suspects and sent them to Guantanamo and other camps, with con sequences now well known. Obama’s policy is to kill suspects (along with “collateral damage”). The roots of the revenge killing are deep. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the American desire for vengeance displaced concern for law or security. In his book, “The Far Enemy,” Fawaz Gerges, a leading academic specialist on the jihadi movement, found that “the dominant response by jihadis to Sept. 11 is an ex plicit rejection of al-Qaida and total opposition to the internationalization of jihad ... Al-Qaida united all social forces (in the Muslim world) against its global jihad.” The influential Lebanese cleric Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah sharply condemned al-Qaida’s 9/11 atrocities on priccipled grounds. “We must not punish in dividuals who have no relationship with the American administration or even those who have an indirect role,” he said. Fadlallah was the target of a CIA-organized assassina tion operation in 1985, a huge truck bomb placed outside a mosque. He escaped, but 80 others were killed, mostly women and girls, as they left the mosque – one of those in numerable crimes that don’t enter the ann als of terror. Subsequent U.S. actions, particularly the invasion of Iraq, gave new life to al-Qaida. What are the likely consequences of the killing of bin Laden? For the Arab world, it will probably mean little. He had long been a fading presence, and in the past few months was eclipsed by the Arab Spring. A fairly general perception in the Arab world is captured by the headline in a Lebanese newspaper: “The execution of bin Laden: A settling of accounts between killers.” The most immediate and significant consequences are likely to be seen in Pakistan. There is much discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden. Less is said about the fury in Pakistan that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Pakistan is the most dangerous country on Earth, with the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. The revenge killing on Pakistani soil only stoked the anti-American fervor that had long been building. In his new book, “Pakistan: A Hard Country,” Anatol Lieven writes that “if the U.S. ever put Pakistani soldiers in a position where they felt that honor and patriotism required them to fight America, many would be very glad to do so.” And if Pakistan collapsed, an “absolutely inevitable result would be the flow of large numbers of highly trained ex-soldiers, including explosive experts and engineers, to extremist groups.” The primary threat is leakage of fissile materials to jihadi hands, a horrendous eventuality. The Pakistani military has already been pushed to the edge by U.S. attacks on Pakistani sovereignty. One factor is the drone attacks in Pakistan that Obama escalated immediately after the killing of bin Laden, rubbing salt in the wounds. But there is much more, including the demand that the Pakistani military cooperate in the U.S. war against the Afghan Taliban. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis see the Taliban as fighting a just war of resistance against an invading army, according to Lieven. The killing of bin Laden could have been the spark that set off a conflagration, with dire consequences, particularly if the invading force had been compelled to fight its way out, as was anticipated. Perhaps the assassination was perceived as an “act of vengeance,” as Robertson concludes. Whatever the motive, it could hardly have been security. © 2011 Noam Chomsky

Originally Posted by Toughy (Post 334111) I thought Ender was talking about all those folks that were shown on CNN celebrating. I don't see the gross generalization other do. Concerning celebrating the death of a mass murderer. Many folks in this country are revenge motivated and that's why they celebrated. Revenge was had........bin Laden shot in the head and dead. It's the same sort of revenge you see in the death penalty. An eye for an eye.....and we all end up blind. I facilitate a group at the SF VA Medical Center....all veterans with 90% of them having been in combat (from Vietnam, Korea and up to today). I brought up bin Laden. Some folks might think a great cheer went up cuz we got him dead....after all this is a room full of combat warriors who wanted bin Laden dead....some had been in Afghanistan. There was silence and soft spokens words about justice. Someone even said he should have been captured and brought to trial in a US Federal Court .....not a military tribunal. S/he felt a civilian trial with a guilty verdict would in fact strengthen and show the US believes in it's Constitution and the rule of law. It really was basic police work that found him in that compound in Pakistan. I personally don't think we can wage a war on terror with armies and drones and bombs. Terror is a tactic. To catch the leaders ordering this tactic requires good old fashioned boots on the ground police work. Police work and civilian courts brought justice with the first WTC bomber. I would expect the same thing can be repeated without killing people.