Ok, so they say Osama Bin Laden has been shot a few days ago by US forces.
Top news this week. Maybe even bigger than the sickening royal wedding hype.
Got me thinking of related questions.
Bin Laden's death party
To some extend I can understand the rejoicing over the presumed killing of the man supposedly responsible for 9/11. People want to get even, people want justice.
Although in the process of getting even with one man and his followers, Americans have killed numbers of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan... Of course, those peoples lives are not as valuable as American lives, so hey had to become casualties of US getting even with 'Al-Qaeda'. But ok, lets call this justice and sing and dance and celebrate.
I think 'justice' would be more like when you punish a mass murderer without killing innocent people in mass yourself. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Chasing this bogeyman has resulted in more deaths he himself ever caused. It opened a whole new era of invasions and occupations entitled 'a war on terror'. Meaning whenever US thinks there is a terrorist in foreign country they have all the rights to start bombing and occupying it. Killing thousands to find a few bad guys.
Allan Nairn has said it better than me in this video:
"People cheer because they thought they saw justice, but this was not justice delivered by—a kind of rough justice delivered by victims. This was one killer killing another, a big killer, the United States government, killing another, someone who’s actually a smaller one, bin Laden. And the bin Laden doctrine that, to take out the CIA office that was at the World Trade Center, it’s OK to blow up the whole World Trade Center, to teach Americans a lesson, it’s OK to slaughter thousands of Americans—that doctrine lives on in the American White House, in the American Pentagon. You know, every day—and in seats of authority all over the world.
Every day, the U.S., directly with its own forces, or indirectly through its proxy forces, its clients, is killing, at a minimum, dozens of people. I mean, just since Obama came in, in the one limited area of drone strikes in Pakistan, something like 1,900 have been killed just under Obama. And that started decades before 9/11."
Osama is dead. There are no evidence to prove he was killed a few days ago, but he most propably was. If for some people a word from the authorities is all it takes to become convinced - fine, but for those who keep in mind the number of times governments have lied or have been 'wrong' - a single statement may not be enough. That's why I say - he most probably was killed yesterday.
Remember those tapes with the so called Osama that didn't look anything like himself? They claimed the videos were authentic.
Ok, now we also have a 'confirmation from al-Qaeda' out. But, it is just "according to a statement attributed to the group and posted on jihadist internet forums", and "the statement's authenticity could not be independently confirmed, but it was posted on websites where the group traditionally puts out its messages".
But you don't notice these details if you're one of those who only reads headlines.
The circumstances of Osama's death
Now, according to the latest news, Osama wasn't even armed. Which makes his killing an execution. I recommend reading Moore's interview on this topic (Michael Moore: 'Bin Laden Was Executed').
Had they captured the man and brought him to US to stand trial and possibly be executed there, it would have prevented the spread of conspiracy theories.
And now, with the lack of transparency, consistency and logic - of course we're gonna have conspiracy theories. Naturally.
Then, what kind of a low IQ bullshit is 'following the Islamic burrial tradition'? Is invading foreign countries and occupying them an Islamic tradition? Since when has US military became concerned with Muslims' traditions? Especially, when the 'Muslim' in question is the guy regarded by them as the worst criminal!
People who believe explanations like these will believe anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they believed in Bigfoot.
Shooting Bin Laden dead without a proper trial or at least an 'exciting' trip to Gitmo is perfectly fine, but not burrying him according to an Islamic tradition is unthinkable? This is the stupidest explanation I've heard in a long time.
Later they came up with a less silly one, stating they didn't want Osama's grave to become a center of pilgrimage.
I think many people around the globe would rather see Bin Laden tried according to the law and punished legally, not executed without any legal proceedings.
Not because a mass murderer deserves a trial, but because this is how we do things in 21st century and what makes us civillized and different from mafia gangs and the murderers we go after to punish.
We either approve of all extrajudicial killings or we stick to the international law at all times. Once we start making exceptions its a slippery slope.
And while I was writing this article the news came up about UN asking for facts to proove the necessity of killing as opposed to capturing Bin Laden.
Vicious circle of bad and worse
It's sad to watch how American media is bursting with the heated debates on who deserves more credit for getting the guy. Democrates? Republicans? Maybe Dick Cheney should apologize to Obama for calling him weak? Will Obama gain points and be elected again because of the event?
A choice with no real choice. Should we elect people who say they gonna escalate wars and rob us of public option and imprison whistleblowers or should we elect the guys who will be talking good stuff but doing essentially same sh*t? Gee, what a choice! Really should think hard about that one!
And while Americans are cracking their heads picking the lesser evil, both parties get to stay in power for decades taking a turn in leadership.
We have a similar mascarade here as well. Two oligarchs parties trying to make it look like they're sooo different and the only real choice is between them only. No other options. They do differ a little. Just because their businesses are different. One have more interest in selling and buying here, the other one - there. Both couldn't give a damn about people.
But it works! People take the bait and engage in picking the best among the worst trying to vote for lesser of the evils. And this is exactly what keeps both evils alive.
Skepticism and conspiracy theories
Now as to my phrase 'the man supposedly responsible for 9/11' phrase.
Yes, I still fail to see how WTC 7 (building 7) was able to collapse if it was never hit by any airplanes. And yes, even with my poor knowledge of physics I doubt a passport could survive a fire in which even steel has been molten, according to authorities. These and other unanswered questions surrounding the tragedy are making me doubt the official version.
After all, in contemporary world a man is deemed innocent until proven guilty. Maybe not in US any more. But generally. So one would have to stand trial and be convicted to be legally recognized to be a perpetrator of some crime. Trial that proved Osama to be responsible? Or islamic terrorists? ...
That's why news agencies still use the 'believed to be responsible' phrase in most cases. At least here. Because it's a fair description of the man.
What's happening in US these days is frightening. Anyone can be called an enemy combatant and detained indefinitely with no trial. This resembles the 'enemy of the people' term that was used in Soviet Union for any inconvenient individual who needed to be shut off. Once you were proclaimed to be an enemy of the people, you had no rights.
So even though I know I might provoke some criticism over doubting the islamic-terrorists-without-any-help-from-inside-us story, I have to admit that I have big doubts over that. And if one day I'm convinced the version was actually right, I'm gonna write about that and explain why I've chainged my mind.
I don't believe the official version of 9/11 events just as I didn't believe swine flu was more dangerous than those fast-tracked vaccines FDA and other governments official agencies were pushing. Turned out later, I was right. Lots of naive people followed authorities advice like a herd of sheeps. Only to find out later there was a conspiracy in the highest levels of WHO. Not a theory. Just a conspiracy to make some money on selling tons of vaccines. Nothing supernatural about that. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Yet for so many people its 'believe whatever authorities say' instead of think for yourself.
It's hardly benefitial being a skeptic. I mean, it's not politically correct or pleasant to question the official version of events when the majority around is applauding the king's new dress. When you turn out to be wrong, but so do lots of others who supported your view, they say it's only natural for you to be wrong since it was such a wide-spread belief. So you're on the safe side being a gullible conformist. ;))) People will forgive you that.
But when you turn out to be wrong and you happen to be one of the minority, you can expect to be labeled a stupid, crazy conspiracy theorist that can not be listened to ever again.
So it's not fun to challenge the generally accepted versions of events. Except maybe on several occasions. Someimes it pays off being distrustful and skeptical. Like when you don't get a dangerous inoculation that later cripples you or when you don't go to war and die for oil and military profits when your government swears it has solid evidence of the weapons of mass destruction never to be found.
And today, maybe it's wise to get as far away as possible from Fukushima, even though government officials keep talking 'safe levels of radiation'.
I'm not fond of conspiracies. I don't believe in UFOs, ghosts, chupakabras and I don't see a masonic eye on every poster.
But I do know this.
People lie. And people don't stop lying when they become part of the government. Simple as that.
The next logical question. Osama Bin Laden, as far as we know, was just a symbol or at best a spiritual inspiration for terrorists. He was not an important link, he was not planning and coordinating attacks during all these years. The guy was in hiding, on the run. Now dead. But the world is not a safer place because of that. In fact, the security has been tightened in the result over fears of retaliatory attacks. Yes, they're now claiming Osama was planning an 'anniversary attack' because they 'found' some stuff in his house. Well, sorry, but again, theres no way to see if that 'evidence' was really found or planted, just like that fire-proof passport of the terrorist on the ruins of WTC. But even if he was. There are lots of people who could be planning attacks after he is gone. And US continues inciting terrorism over and over with more and more civillian deaths caused by its military and by using torture and keeping Guantanemo open. Civillians who have lost their families today because of US bombing are quite likely to become terrorists tomorrow because they have nothing left to live for. Violence creates more violence. It's a neverending circle of hate.
That's why it is the perfect moment to call for the end of those continuous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, saving other peoples lives and US taxpayers money and using it instead on social programs at home.
Arab revolutions are currently taking place in ME and Africa, where dictators - many of whom have been supported by US - are being thrown down. Maybe it's time to rethink the whole foreign policy. Stop supporting dictators who opress their people. Then the world would really become a better place.
That's what should be happening. But who knows what actually will.
More posts from this category: Why do people still think college degree provides security?US backing Israel once again
Certainly 9/11 is but one of the tragedies that took place. I'm not going to devote a whole lot of time to studying it any more. There are videos - quite convincing - from both sides of the argument, as well as the third side called 'doesn't matter anymore, get over it and move on'.
If I were to be debating the particular questions of 9/11 with someone itd be days of throwing links at each other and I'm too lazy and frankly not 100% convinced one way or the other to be passionately defending either side. I guess Ive gotten used to the state of doubt over the past few years )))
This particular topic is not on the list of things that interest me the most these days. Whether government is capable of staging or allowing a terrorist act on their own citizens is a question, but that they have no problem sending their countrymen to war on a false pretext where many more thousandsof them will die - thats a fact.
I don't think theres an 'anti-American bias'. Both people and countries are judged by their behavior, their actions. Like George Carlin said, 'This country is only 200 years old and already we have had 10 major wars. We average a major war every 20 years in this country'. Facts are stubborn things. So its natural to be more suspicious of American military operations these days, because there seems to be a pattern ...
I'm careful watching any media, but especially Murdoch's right-wing war-promoting propaganda. Apparently, more than 60% of Republicans are still convinced there was WMD in Iraq. I bet its somehow connected to the media they're watching
It sometimes seems to me that the desire in people to be proud of their country prevents them from looking at its policy objectively. Patriotism is a problem because people should first and foremost identify themselves with the rest of human kind, not the place of their birth.