OSAMA BINLADEN IS DEAD

[violaine]

if martin luther king were alive, he might [hard to know it's impossible/hypothetical] still use terms familiar to his speeches - 'black, white, et c.'

pondering topics within this thread; my friend here now, says he prefers 'black,' and we then found this:

Surveys show that the majority of Black Americans have no preference for whether "African American" or "Black" is employed to describe them, although they also show that there is a slight preference for "Black" in personal settings and "African American" in more formal settings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

[Nat]

From Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech, "Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence" which was delivered in protest to the war in Vietnam, I think it's reasonable to think he might have meant what he said in that quote posted above.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says:

Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Please don't tell a POC what term is ok to use cause Wikipedia says so.

[violaine]

oh. that was merely a brief/ quick reference after my poc friend and i had a conversation. i posted to topic.

i'm sure that i could find more-

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...anics-too.html

[AtLast]

Full transcript link-
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcr...ryId=135917389

Lawrence Wright: Bin Laden's Death 'Long In Coming'

The CIA was reaching out to screenwriters, such as I had done, and I said: Well, you know, I'm a reporter. I can't go writing screenplays for the CIA. But I'll tell you in the form of an op-ed for the New York Times what I think if we were able to catch bin Laden.

First of all, remember that bin Laden is the most famous man in the world. He's going to be one of the most famous men in history. So if you have the good luck to catch him, you have to deal with the legacy, not just the man.

And if you catch him, don't kill him because he'll become a martyr, which is what he seeks to be. But don't take him to America just yet.

First of all, take him to Kenya, where on August 6, 1998, he set off a bomb in front of an American embassy, killing 224 people and wounding, blinding 150 Africans. Let him sit in a courtroom in Nairobi and tell 150 blind Africans that he was just striking at a symbol of American power.

And then you can take him to Tanzania, where on the same day, he set off another bomb in front of another American embassy, killing 11 people, all of them Muslims. And bin Laden excused that because it was Friday, and good Muslims would be in the mosque.

I think that would be a wonderful venue to talk about what a good Muslim actually is. And then you could bring him to America and have him answer for the death of the 17 sailors on the USS Cole in October, 2000, and the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11.

But you don't have to stop there. You can take him so many places. You know, Casablanca, Madrid, London, Bali. But just take him one last place. Take him home and try him under Sharia law, which is the only law that he and his followers would respect.

And if he's convicted, he would be taken to a square in downtown Riyadh, and the executioner is a big man with a long sword, and it's Saudi custom for the executioner to go out and ask the crowd, which is composed of the victims of the condemned man, to forgive him.

And if they couldn't do that, then the executioner would do his job, and bin Laden would be taken and buried in an unmarked Wahhabi graveyard. And I thought in that manner, you could begin to roll back some of his awful legacy.

The whole interview is available via the link above.

[Gayla]

I spend my days driving around, listening to the local news station on the radio (unless there is a baseball game on, then I listen to that). Today was all about this. I listened to approximately 10.5 hours of news coverage. I heard everything from the local response from the guys who hang out in a bar by the military base to the national interviews with, well, with everyone to the one hour special report ABC radio just did.

What I've heard, and what I believe to be true, is that this was a capture or kill mission. He was given the option of surrendering to the special forces and he chose not to. Of course, they would have rather taken him alive but he wasn't going to let that happen.

I also heard, and I believe, that in addition to not wanting to create a shrine at his place of burial, the main reason he was buried at sea is because no country was willing to take his body.

I fully expect the conspiracy theorist to run rampant. I've already heard that he really died 10 years ago, that they actually took him out a month ago and just delayed the news for political gain, that they didn't kill him and he's currently in custody somewhere, that they didn't bury him at sea and are holding his body somewhere, and it goes on and on and on.

Call me naive but until I have something to go on other than random Facebook rants, I will believe what the President tells me.

I still don't feel like this is something to celebrate but it has been interesting to see the little pockets of patriotism that have sprung up since last night. I noticed more flags flying today than I have in a long time. The corner byt he post office where the tea party/pro life folks usually hang out, was occupied today by a random group of folks that I've never seen before. They weren't chanting or singing or really making much of a fuss at all - just standing there, waving their flags. As I sat at the light, a few more folks joined them and by the time I was making my way home they had filled up all four corners of the intersection. I honked and waved.

[BullDog]

I don't believe that peace comes from killing someone. My first reaction was to post the "Imagine" video. I am not celebrating his death.

However, I do believe President Obama and the Navy Seals did their job with professionalism and efficiency. President Obama also gave credit to the Bush Administration- something I can't imagine a Republican President doing in return.

Perhaps I am naive, but I don't think anything seems fishy. If President Obama was doing it for political gain I would think he would have timed this closer to the re-election time and not now. Americans have a short memory. I don't think President Obama would try to fake anything of this nature, so yes I believe Bin Laden is dead and don't think anyone is trying to hide any evidence by burying him at sea. I do believe they tried to respect how his body was handled.

I would have preferred to have seen him brought to trial, but on the other hand I do believe under the leadership of President Obama that the killing of Bin Laden was done as professionally and as ethically as possible.

Now we wait to see what comes next. I believe everyone involved in this mission is very clear that it is far from over.

p.s. thank you Nat for posting the link for President Obama's announcement on the internet. I don't watch tv, so would have missed it otherwise.

[morningstar55]

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.........

[girl_dee]

Forgive me for not being up to speed on the details, I don't watch tv and have stayed away from the media hype, but were the other people killed in the raid buried at sea as well? Have they disclosed this? I couldn't find any info on this.

[Gráinne]

While I suppose I'm glad that justice was served, I still see no difference in the celebrations over his death and the ones in the Middle East over 9/11. Both make me feel very uncomfortable.

[The_Lady_Snow]

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?

[Ebon]

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?

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Ebon

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?

His family has given samples.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Ebon

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?

One report pointed to family members. We have had a relationship with the royal family of Saudi Arabia for a long time. I think he is 17th out od 112 siblings! Lots of DNA out there to use- his family banished him long ago. There are probably fingerprints available too. Possibly blood samples via medical records via the family.

I hope the science and technology behind the facial progression recognition computer imaging is eventually released or a documentary done on it.

There could actually be his DNA preserved somewhere and has been profiled and preserved quite awhile ago. In his early terrorist days, he did partake in the actual events. Our CIA and even the FBI could have had access to this data through other countries including Saudi Arabia (he killed many in his own country). This would be right around the time there was thinking about preserving DNA but before the level of testing we have today.

I bet all of this will eventually be presented. Here is a link about the family DNA samples-

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...milys-dna.html

This one is about forensic facial recognition softeware-

All identification techniques can have problems- so it appears there are several being used. The initial DNA results could have been within a few hours, but these would not be of the quality (accuracy) as the tests that take much longer. Oh, and good old dental records are in the mix!
http://www.thetruthaboutforensicscie...ama-bin-laden/

[Miss Scarlett]

With regard to DNA testing...i imagine he has children...it's as simple as testing the paternal bloodline. Unless he has an identical twin who could have fathered the child(ren).