One year later: looking back on the post-Osama bin Laden world.
Tagged: osama bin laden Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
aziz
-
aziz
Osama bin Laden’s porn has been found:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-binladen-porn-idUSTRE74C4RK20110513
-
Arwi
How do you know it’s “Osama’s porn stash” when the people disseminating the story say “they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials”?
Secondly, when the article first came out a year ago, it was met with widespread skepticism because of similar stories turning out to be propaganda. I really find it bizarre that anyone would think whether or not Osama watched porn is remotely relevant.
-
aziz
seems unlikely that the main resident of the compound, for whom it was built, would be unaware of it and have nohing to do with it.
but in the bigger picture, the more that “bin laden porn” becomes a search result and the concept associated with his name, the better. The route to extremism starts with accepting that OBL, Awlaki et al are authorities on piety and Islam. Anything we can do to combat that perception (as long as it is grounded in fact: porn WAs found in OBL’s lair) is of benefit in reducing the risk posed to our community by these predators.
-
Arwi
The trouble with changing the subject from the contents of Bin Laden’s piety to whether or not the man watched porn is that it leaves the door open to anyone who shares Bin Laden’s worldview and doesn’t watch porn.
Not to mention that in this particular case, it makes you look like you are willing to fling any available dirt in the hopes some of it will stick. I don’t think I have any especial fondness for Bin Laden, and I find this gambit repugnant.
-
aziz
I guess I disagree. This isn’t flinging dirt, it’s raising awareness of the fundamental hypocrisy of those who claim to be acting on pure motives in the name of faith. You can tell a pious man by his character, and while certainly its true that people who watch porn aren’t necessarily terrorists, the terrorists like oBL themselves claim to be people of such impeccable purity that watching porn is an obvious rebuttal. That needs to be emphasized.
The terrorists who dont watch porn have their own flaws, surely. There’s no “door left open” here.
-
Arwi
The terrorists who dont watch porn have their own flaws, surely. There’s no “door left open” here.
So basically you are incapable of rebutting them on theological or ideological or intellectual grounds, and you just wait to find discover some personal failing to denigrate them?
Perhaps there are people this line will work on but it’s having quite the opposite of the intended effect on me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lawrence of Arabia
A Catholic church in Florida will be offering five intentions for this Sunday’s Mass, including one for Osama bin Ladin.
Parishioner Henry Borga requested the mass intention, on behalf of one Osama bin Laden, which is a long-standing tradition in the Catholic Church in which masses are offered for souls in purgatory or to remember someone who has died or in honor of someone still living. Borga told a local television channel that he placed the request for bin Laden because “he needs forgiveness and compassion from God.”
-
aziz
John McCain eloquently against torture, still. And disproves assertion that torture got bin Laden.
-
aziz
Khalid Latif writes at CNN about the issue of OBL’s burial at sea:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/my-take-burial-at-sea-shows-compassion-of-islamic-law
-
aziz
My emotional reaction to bin Laden’s death – five stages.
-
aziz
here is Yasir Qadhi’s reaction:
http://muslimmatters.org/2011/05/02/thoughts-on-the-death-of-obl-by-yasir-qadhi/
-
aziz
here is Umar Lee’s reaction:
http://umarlee.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/usama-bin-laden-feelings-reaction-and-aftermath/
-
-
aziz
“Osama bin Laden, as we all know, had the very grave responsibility of spreading division and hatred amongst the people, causing the death of countless people, and of instrumentalizing religion for this end,” he said. “In front of the death of man, a Christian never rejoices but rather reflects on the grave responsibility of each one in front of God and men, and hopes and commits himself so that every moment not be an occasion for hatred to grow but for peace.”
Response to death of OBL by The Vatican-
aziz
However, Arsalan IIftikar explains why for American Muslims, it’s a reason to rejoice:
http://us.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/02/iftikhar.binladen.killing/index.html?hpt=T1
-
Abu Noor
How can someone call himself an Islamic Pacifist or a Muslim Gandhi and then rejoice and utter Allahu Akbar with regard to killing. It would seem like most ambitious Muslim pacifists they just want the Muslims to be pacifists and will encourage the empires to continue killing.
I am much more impressed by the Vatican’s statement.
Allah knows best.
-
aziz
perhaps relief is the better emotion.
-
-
-
yassir
I think too many people are focusing on the individual that is bin laden, as opposed to the overall picture. Its a shame that the Western media circus is so amateurish at times as to caricature this is a debate between good and evil. http://yassirmorsi.com/2011/05/06/blog-the-objective-face-of-terrorism/
-
-
aziz
Pakistan’s subservient media is torn between “chuka” and “chukey” in Urdu on reporting on #OBL.
-
aziz
another good editorial in Dawn makes the case that Petraeus at the CIA will force Pakistan to reevaluate it’s priorities.
Petraeus also has little patience for the Pakistan Army’s preoccupation with the Indian threat, and has publicly urged Pakistanis to acknowledge that homegrown terrorism poses a greater existential threat.
It is likely that Petraeus will primarily view Pakistan, its relationship with the US and its regional role through the prism of the war in Afghanistan. One can therefore expect him to reiterate his earlier message, and push back against Pakistan’s ‘hedging’ policy in Afghanistan (whereby the establishment tries not to anger groups that may either one day participate in Afghan government, or have the potential of turning against the Pakistani state).
-
-
thabet
Major news outlets and Twitter is abuzz with news that Osama bin Laden is dead, and the US has his body…
-
aziz
-
sage
I suppose I don’t entirely begrudge America for our display of exhilaration and happiness over killing someone. I personally think it’s barbaric – after all, like most uncivilized countries, we base our foriegn policy on old cowboy movies and our moral policy on “an eye for an eye” – but I do understand. But wouldn’t it have been preferable to have him tried, imprisoned and interrogated? Not because it’s more moral (What does a country with the death penalty know about morality?) but because it makes sense strategically? It may have been to everyone’s benefit to comprehend what Al Qaeda is about, and perhaps we would have been able to infiltrate the network and capture a few other masterminds. And if he had to be killed, couldn’t we at least have interrogated him first?
But to the American masses, it’s all about the killing. Anything deeper than that just doesn’t provide a satisfactory catharsis.
-
aziz
You’re right, we are all monsters. Bloodthirsty savages, we.
BTW, it’s possible to make this critique in a way that doesn’t reveal a knee-jerkl anti-Americanism. Glenn Greenwald is a honorable example:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html
-
sage
“Bloodthirsty savages, we.” “knee-jerk anti-Americanism.”
Yes, that’s the typically juvenile response I’ve come to expect from most people. I’m sorry I’m spoiling everyone’s moment of joy and happiness, but instead of levelling insults and mockery, why don’t you tell me where I’m incorrect in my statement? That’s what’s done in intellectual discourse. We don’t engage in insults, but in rational concepts and ideas. I’m looking forward to reading some.
-
aziz
my poor dear, who first used teh word “barbaric” and “uncivilized” in this thread? In fairness to you, if you actually think “to the American masses, it’s all about the killing” is a way to begin a civil conversation then perhaps that excuses your total lack of manners.
But fine, I’ll engage on the merits.
The operation was almost certainly legal as this excellent analysis points out (h/t @thabet1979): http://www.ejiltalk.org/was-the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden-lawful/
But its worth noting that even if it weren’t, there are limitations to international law, which has been sorely tested in the terrorism age (just as they were inthe piracy age). See: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/05/bin-laden-osama
The bottom line is that if OBL had wanted to surrender, he didnt have to fight back when the seal team arrived. But once he engaged them, they had every right to fire back. I suppose you will now argue that the barbaric, uncivilized Americans should have restrained themselves even in the face of OBL’s resistance to only injure him. Im further certain you wouldnt believe that such restraint would be something above and beyond what ordinary criminals face on the streets from police in similar situations. But for you, this debate is really an opening for critique of America – all about the killing, right? Well played, sir.
-
sage
I never said all Americans are uncivilized or barbaric. Some are, some aren’t. But think of it this way. I’m half-Italian, and I have no problems saying that Italians (from Italy, I mean) are corrupt, or at least that’s the general tendency. A statement like that doesn’t offend me for the simple reason that I’m not corrupt. I consider myself to be a civilized American, and I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong, but even if I was uncivilized I wouldn’t feel offended by the comments I made. But the issue is that when Americans gather around and dance and shoot fireworks over someone’s death, then their uncivilized character manifests itself. And I’m sorry to say this, but that’s also what happened in your comments to me.
Now as to your scenario. Seriously? How naive does one have to be to believe that the official version of the attack – and the reaction by Bin Laden – is the gospel truth? I mean, come on. There are many suspicious holes in the story, and of course there’s always the concept of a lying government, you know. And it sounds like a fiction, doesn’t it? He died in battle – how honorable! And of course he threw himself into the line of fire while trying to kill our fighting men and women, which means he’s a coward. And yes, it may very well have happened that way. If we had a corpse, it could be examined and forensics by an independent team could easily verify the story. Except there is no corpse. The body had to be buried within 24 hours in accordance with the Muslim religion, that’s their official excuse. So was killed with great sensitivity, that’s what we’re supposed to believe.
Even you’re sugarcoating your story. It’s not like Bin Laden had a choice. For all we know, he DID try to surrender. But it’s being reported all over the news that the specific mission was to take him out. Not to capture him, but to kill him.
-
aziz
Your logic is impeccable. The entire thing must have been a hoax. I just suppose I am too slow to really understand the WHY though. Would you mind explaining that to me? Is it political advantage? Why does Pakistan play along? Why did Hamas play along, for that matter?
I await your explanations. Surely you’ve more insight than I.
-
-
-
-
aziz
also, David Sirota gets the critique right:
-
-
sage
“Your logic is impeccable. The entire thing must have been a hoax.”
No, I was saying the official story didn’t hold water, and guess what? I was right. It didn’t. There was no “surrender” option for OBL, despite what you said. He didn’t “engage” them and they didn’t “fire back” because he had no firearm on him. He was fired upon, plain and simple. But we like to accept a more comfortable narrative, one that places the U.S. on as high a moral ground as possible. We don’t like to think that this was a quick and easy execution-without-trial from a sovereign nation that plays by its own rules, so we accept the government’s initial story without question.
-
-
abunoor
Foreign Policy presents “The Almanac of Al-Qaeda”
Like a snake backed into a corner, however, a weakened al Qaeda isn’t necessarily less dangerous. In the first comprehensive look of its kind, Foreign Policy offers the Almanac of Al Qaeda, a detailed accounting of how al Qaeda’s ranks, methods, and strategy have changed over the last decade and how they might evolve from here. What emerges is a picture of a terrorist vanguard that is losing the war of ideas in the Islamic world, even as its violent attacks have grown in frequency.
It’s not because the United States is winning — most Muslims still have extremely negative attitudes toward the United States because of its wars in the Muslim world and history of abuses of detainees. It’s because Muslims have largely turned against Osama bin Laden’s dark ideology. Favorable ratings of the terrorist leader and the suicide bombings he advocates fell by half in the two most-populous Islamic countries, Indonesia and Pakistan, between 2002 and 2009. In Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s ruthless campaign of sectarian violence obliterated the support al Qaeda had enjoyed there, deeply damaging its brand across the Arab world.
thabet and 
Arwi and 
Abu Noor are discussing. 
sage and 
thabet 4:38 pm on May 1, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The post-Osama bin Laden world: where torturers and war criminals run free*.
*Applies only to torturers and war criminals on The Right Side. Those on The Wrong Side may face death either via a drone, or after protracted civil strife.
aziz 7:10 am on May 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
regardless of the flaws in execution, and I’m with you on the need to cease the drone war (and I go further, I want an end to the doctrine of collateral damage itself) – isn’t there an objectively Right and Wrong side? I think we can agree that these sides exist, though defining them is probably trickier. AQ wants Right/Wrong to be Islam/West, neocons want it to be Civilzation/Terrorists, but neither narrative depicts reality acccurately enough. Im not sure what terms I would use for Right/Wrong, in a clinical sense. How would you define them? (assuming you agree they exist)
thabet 7:10 pm on May 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Why do torturers and war criminals in the West (esp US, UK) — or our allies — go unpunished? Why are they not pursued with the same vigour as, say, torturers and war criminals who also happen to be our ‘enemies’?
We routinely see calls for indictments against the Syrian or Sudanese regime for war crimes; but even the mildest of criticisms of Israel is met with derision. Iran is denounced as ‘medieval’ and in violation of ‘international obligations’ wrt human rights by the same politicians who will appear smiling on camera with the House of Saud.