I agree with Sam Vatkin that it would have been better to take bin Laden alive. The yanks could then stick him in a dungeon somewhere and "waterboard" him to their hearts content, to squeeze vital information out of him which may ahve saved the lives of thousands of potential victims.

But then thousands of people like Sam Vatkin would have crawled out from under their rocks to express their sympathy for bin Laden's plight, and demand that he receive every right that bin Laden intended to deny everybody else.

I tend to agree...but then I'm one of the few who rejected the official reality distortion field that the media propaganda has cast.
Yes he was a CIA creation (School of America is *still* pumping out official terrorists!). Yes, he was killed so that nothing like due process could be undertaken. Due process is not just good for him...it is a necessary part of civilisation. Ignoring the law to commit murder in the name of mob rule is very USA (particularly the south).
I'm sure the CIA had no intentions of letting him speak no matter what the value of his intelligence, simply because any amount of truth would make the US look very bad indeed. (Bay of Pigs invasion is still classified! the official history *cannot* be ruined by mere truth).
The CIA is an out-of-control world power that has very tenuous links to any democratic process. To call them a criminal organisation is not a stretch or a theory...it is just plain true.

Yes it is somtimes difficult to swallow what is served up as news by governments through the mainstream media.

As citizens we should abhor terrorists of all shapes and sizes whether they be individuals or governments.

In general, governments cannot continue to commit atrocities or be revealed as liars and then innocently claim conspiracy theories when they have been caught out. Conspiracy theories are only such until they are proven but we still should keep some perspective.

None of us here would know what the truth is about Osama bin Laden's capture and death, but what we do know from experience is what is made public is not always an honest account.

Let's see what history might teach us in another 50 years when the incumbent government won't be culpable for revealing what really happened. If they ever do - we are still waiting on the truth about the Kennedy assasinations and in Australia AWB.

Sam, you base your case on why BL was not taken alive and thus your great conspiracy is given breath.

There will be many more conspiracy theories, documentaries, and yes, there will be the inevitable books and movies. It called “entertainment”.

Sure the Navy Seals could have used nerve gas, non lethal riot or taser guns, they could indeed have ignored the possibility that the compound was wired to blow, that delay might allow “bolt holes” to be accessed, that a protracted conflict could have put soldiers at increased risk, not to mention more civilians emerging to watch the “fireworks”, thus increasing risk to locals or finally, that BL would have been happy to be captured.

What is really disturbing is your clear desire to see the USA punished for topping this madman and your cavalier attitude to further loss of life. Sorry for your loss. Get over it

I actually think it's a message to reinforce to the world that America is at war with terrorism and not a world authority.

If you capture Bin Laden and put him in a western or UN court, what does that tell people from an opposing Shariah society?
"We are imperialists and we will subject you to OUR ways- this man has wronged us so we will put him in a Western-style court"
That would NOT go down well when most of the terrorists believe that imperial colonialism is what we are up to (and the main reason they took up arms).

Shooting him in the head would most likely elicit a much less emotional response "America and Bin Laden became locked in a war, after 10 years America won and our shiek/leader/whatever is a martyr" would resonate.

Maybe its time terrorists were told its time to disengage.
I think killing Bin Laden was the only way to go. Otherwise the world would have had to suffer drawn out court hearings probably costing billions. Bin Laden has suffered the worst possible buriel.

Osama Bin Laden does not desereve a hero's shrine. As a prisoner and burial he would have been worshipped and remembered. The sharks will have a frenzy on him for a while. His remains will vanish from the Earth forever, excreated as shark dung.

Yeah Philo, there are many Iraqis with family members killed by allied forces who might think the same about some Western leaders.

Bin Laden will still be a martyr body or no body. Fact is terrorism is not just about bin Laden and the road to peace is no closer from his death - Al Qai'da is too fragmented and is not the only Islamic Fundamentalist group.

It would be a positive spin off from his death if some road to reconciliation and peace be found but I fear we are not much closer to realising that goal.

Bin Laden is now just another unarmed fugitive who has been shot by the cops, he didn't go out in a blaze of glory nor was justice served.
Just like the coward and mass murderer Che Guevara, Osama will be remembered not as he was but as an ideal, a fetish for the simpleminded and deluded people of the world.

Was Osama killed?
Have the US released the proof or is it still hearsay?
And when did this alleged killing occur? Was it this wee or some time ago?
Or is this just to get Osama to make another video so that then the US maybe able to locate him?
And why would the US kill one of history's greatest mass murderers, an unarmed man, coralled and clearly outnumbered by elite special forces who chose not to use stun or gas grenades, and then dispose of the alleged body

I seem to recall an adage about the most probably explanation being the truth.

This article jumps all over the place making accusations without addressing any of the more likely points. This paragraph in particular struck me as particularly lazy:

"A shot to the head, execution-style, indicates orders to shoot to kill. Why give up such a cornucopia of information that cannot be obtained in any other way? To shut him up, of course."

Ah. The beauty of the rhetorical self-answered question. What answer could there be, but mine? Why even explore it? The US are always evil, so it must be true, right?

Was the author unable to consider that with Osama taken alive, there'd be a high likelihood of hostages taken, with demands of Osama's release?

Was the author unable to consider the headache this would cause in terms of organizing a trial? Consider the difficulties of trying those in Gitmo. Imagine it on a scale a hundred times greater.

Was the author unable to consider that if taken alive, there would be a significant portion of the world baying for his blood and a significant portion demanding his release? What about the schism this would cause in domestic politics, regarding how he should be tried?

Honestly. The 'secrets' strike me as way down on the list of concerns the US would have had if he'd been taken alive.
I actually think that if Osama had offered to give himself up on the condition that he not be executed, it would have caused more damage to the US than any single bombing. How could they refuse to take the world's most wanted man into custody. How could they then keep him alive while their enemies whip themselves into a frenzy?

Secret-keeping. Pfft. He couldn't be taken alive because it would have caused a political sh!tstorm of epic proportions. Not the secrets, the act itself.

The more I thought about this article, the more silly the premise became.

If Osama had secrets that could damage the US, why wouldn't he have revealed them at the first chance?

If Osama revealed secrets, would discrediting a violent terrorist have been difficult?

Given the number of diabolical secrets that were revealed during the course of the Iraq war (such as ridiculous levels of corruption) which didn't cause too many ripples, would any secrets really seriously damage this comparatively young administration?

Finally, doesn't the difficulty of trying Osama in some kind of court as well as the threat of hostage events seem like a much more credible explanation for the US to want him dead rather than alive?

This analysis reeks of ideologically driven assumptions.

From my initial reaction to the news of bin Laden's execution (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4442) where I expressed my relief to the news that bin Laden was dead.

I have worked my way through to the words of Martin Luther King Jr

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

“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.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

One less tyrant achieves nothing, there is no example to be set by vengeance except more vengeance. 'Western Culture' may lay claim to being more humane, but not by much, not enough to lead by example.

All the USA has done is live down to Al Qaeda's expectations. Osama bin Laden is dead, long live Osama bin Laden.