The War For Profit Gang have plumbed the depths of our gullibility and ignorance and found them to be almost bottomless. Those guys must be cacking themselves with mirth as they prepare for next season's false flag attack on our credibility.

The fake "security experts" won't have to wait long for their next banquet if the smorgasboard of fake terror in this "news" report is anything to go by:

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14993

Note this is brought to you by the patron saint of fake terror Murdoch, known in this house as Cloacus Maxima (Google it)....

Concerning Bin Laden, in 2006 the FBI admitted, "He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". Why then do so many victims of this fairy tale have a vested interest in keeping the myths alive? Have we become so intellectually cretinous that we have lost the power to face reality without our daily dose of junk TV?

What about our kids out there in Afghanistan? What about them? The 20 year-old servicemen were only 11 when this fakery began. Don't we owe them better than that... our kids?

It's pathetic that so many people would rather save face than admit to the fact that we have been made to look like fools....

Yes, as predicted in my first post, there are those who will automatically turn Bin Laden, the mass murderer, into a victim, if not a hero, and the US into the villains. That's why he wasn't kept alive.

Atman

Bin Laden is no victim.

Nor

the USA heroes.

No one is looking righteous in the "war on terror".

Whether the killing was legal or not is a bit of an irrelevant question. Law is only worth mentioning if somebody has the power to enforce it. Who in the world is going to stand up to the USA? If Obama authorised an illegal operation, who in the world is really going to prosecute him? Why do we bother talking about it, then?

I am in two minds over this one. On the one hand, I'm not going to lose any sleep over his death; on the other, my stomach turns a little bit every time I hear the word 'justice' in connection with this story. In my opinion, it is a sick misuse of the word - at least as we understand it in the western world.

Another pointless issue (relevant, perhaps, but pointless because we won't be doing anything about it anytime soon) is the fact that the USA once again justifies its actions with reference to its own laws, but no regard for the laws of the country in which the actions took place. The killing took place in Pakistan, apparently without the approval of the Pakistani government (though it appears that they still haven't worked out their own story). Would we accept and applaud these actions if they took place on our soil, without the knowledge or approval of our government?

Ah James, how easy it is to be an armchair critic, with the benefit
of time and the safety of your home. I remind you, this operation
was about nailing the world's most wanted terrorist, it was not
the arrest of a petty criminal.

In war, if you want to survive, you shoot first and ask questions
later, unless the situation is crystal clear. Otherwise you'll
land up as another statistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/helmet-cams-captured-bin-laden-raid/2011/05/12/AFcgxY1G_video.html

The Washington Post put together what happened in those last moments.

Clearly there was a struggle, nobody put their hands up, the situation
was not clear. In that case, shoot first is excellent advice.

Even what bin Laden was wearing is not so clear. One commentary
claimed that he was wearing a jacket with phone numbers and money.
But if a set of pyjamas would fool you, you clearly would not be
much good against the tricks of Al Qaeda. They took out Massoud
when he forgot to doubt their video camera and forgot to have it
checked for explosives. None of those guys were aware what else
could be waiting in that room.

If my life was on the line, I would do exactly the same in a war
situation. Shoot first and ask questions later, unless everybody
has their hands up, or if there is the slightest struggle.

Better to be paranoid then dead. Armchair critics of course don't
risk their lives, so they can pontificate to their hearts content.

It is sad that “experts” far from the scene of events seem to have a pathological need to nitpick .

Look at the salient facts:
1)The subject –through his own taped & written records --admitted personally planning & financing the murder of thousands of non-combatants across a number of countries and, inspired the killing & maiming many more.
2)When a request was made to his then Taliban hosts that he be handed over for trial , they refused . When an attempt was made to capture him, he fled. We now learn taking up residence in Pakistan while all the time orchestrating further dastardly deeds.
3)His brethren (which may include the Pakistani military and intelligence services) have shown a willingness to hide and service him whatever his doings.
4)He had vowed never to be taken alive and was never too committed to the Queensbury rules.

Why would anyone --living in the real world-- risk his/her life to extend a chance to such a person?

The experts, now that the danger has subsided somewhat, suggest things should have been done differently —but to what ends.

If he had been captured, the fall back position for such experts would have no doubt been i) he had not been read his rights, or ii) undue force had been used to move him when he refused to accompany his captors –and imagine the headlines & expert hullabaloo if such a removal resulted in him being …bruised!

And what would have been the odds that one of those legal experts wouldn’t have gotten him off i) diminished mental capacity, or ii) insufficient admissible evidence. We have some right here on OLO who cling to the fantasy that 911 was a CIA or Zionist plot.

And as for Geoffrey Robertson saying a trial would have discredited Osama in the eyes of his admirers --“ Tell him he dreaming!”. Osama can offer his admirers an eternal life serviced by 72 doe eyed heavenly houri.What can Robertson & his peers offer to counter that?