Osama Bin Laden Dead.

Americans are sick. Looking at live video feeds from in front of the White House in Washington and Times Square in New York, the fascistic barbarians are chanting "USA, USA, USA..." ad nauseam. I shed no tears when a ruling class pig like Bin Laden is murdered, but I don't cheer either. It's like the spectacular tail wagging the mindless dog. How convenient for the U.S. state to allegedly pull this off on May Day.

At least some people around the world were memorializing August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, and Louis Lingg -- and the many, many class war martyrs from around the world.

An interesting story to wake up to. Historically, I think it will be viewed as a micro-event, albeit a catalytic one. I doubt Osama had a position of influence in the non-mythological parts of Al-Qaida, and the invasion of the middle east has smeared the jihadi movement so widely and deeply into the muslim world that the loss of a figurehead like bin-Laden will cause merely a temporary darkening of morale.

There are some positives. The GOP, the party of 'gettin the terrorists', are already weeping over the loss of the 2012 election. Obama did in two relatively subdued years what Bush and Cheney couldn't do in the eight most militaristic years since the second world war. And if Chomsky was right that Obama's commitment to the occupation of Afganistan arises from a desire to leave the region with something resembling a victory, the death of bin-Laden might function as a credible alibi. After all, that's what they went in for.

@Hieronymous

You x? Bin Laden killed to move the news away from May Day, you are x Bruno.

Of course the americans gloating considering how many innocents they have killed leaves a sour tatse in the mouth. But its good that this loon is dog meat, its also a time to sit back and see the left spew their black and white anti-imperialist world view. Remember kids your enemies enemy is your friend, or just a 'narrative'.

admin: no flaming

Fuck Bin Laden, but I really hope we ain't goin back to 2001-2002 with this ultranationalistic patriotic stuff.

Interesting to see what happens from here. Will it be a justification for intensifying the mythological 'War on Terror' because of this 'success'? Or will people be like "We got em, why are we still over there?"

US state department has put out a global travel warning for US citizens following the assassination, runs until August for now - hhttp://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/02/State-Dept-warns-of-anti-US-reprisals/UPI-49771304321499/
This is due to an increased risk of anti-US attacks. So they are admitting, albeit indirectly, that the assassination is actually increasing the risk of terrorist attacks, at least in the short-medium term, rather than reducing it. I wonder if they'll extend the warning past the three months.

Quite a coup for Obama. This will probably see him win the next election just off of this one assasination?

Mike Harman:

they are admitting, albeit indirectly, that the assassination is actually increasing the risk of terrorist attacks, at least in the short-medium term

Cut off the hydra's head and three grow back in its place; wouldn't be surprised if 1 of his look-alikes rises on the 3rd day - after all, where's the proof that they got him?

After bin Laden was killed in a raid by US forces in Pakistan, senior administration officials said the body would be handled according to Islamic practice and tradition. That practice calls for the body to be buried within 24 hours, the official said. Finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world's most wanted terrorist would have been difficult, the official said. So the US decided to bury him at sea.

from here.
Perfect alibi for no real examination of the body: concern about Islamic practice (how kind) and not wishing to embarrass the Saudis or whoever. Such sensitivity from the US State.

Expect loads of conspiracy theories - Osama Bin Laden - CIA Triple Agent, etc. Or "Osama Bin Laden Abducted By Aliens, Statue of Osama Found On Mars" or maybe a proliferation of Osama gossip - "Osama Ate My Hamster", "My Night Of Passion With Osama - Kate Middleton", "Osama's Posthumous Outing: Elton John Reveals All", etc.

As for Red Metta's post:

The USA rightwing system appears to instill in its citizens, a certain sense of permanent emotional 'childishness', with regard to the viewing of world events, both happening within and outside of its geographical borders. It is amazing that the US system has no sense of shame, and is completely unable to objectivise itself, and understand how the rest of the world perceives their behaviour. Shouting 'USA' by an emotionally stunted mob, is reminiiscient of wrestling crowds watching a fixed match, or somekind of Disney film that is portraying a 'baddy' getting what he deserves.

It's more developed in the USA than maybe elsewhere, but is it that much different in other capitalist countries? Takes a different content, of course, but those idiots saying how wonderful that kiss between dumb and dumber was on Friday is also indicative of "permanent emotional childishness" - that's how the spectacle works. Perhaps less cheering when a baddy dies but more crying when a goody dies (the millions crying when Di or John Lennon died; or, worse, even inmates of the gulag getting upset when Uncle Joe died).
And his earlier comment:

The hypocracy of US system is astonishing.

Not at all astonishing - it's certainly no more hypocritical than any of the other hierarchical systems - hypocrisy is intrinsic to their power, though it's more blatant with the USA because it's the strongest world power militarily. When Britain was the top dog, there was The White Man's Burden - ever so slightly hypocritical. Tell me a form of hierarchy that isn't (in fact, in this the Nazis were probably less hypocritical than most: they said and did, for the most part, what they said they were going to do and didn't hide their brutality under humanitarian ideology)

The man who broke the news of the US attack

Red-Metta

Of course, making war on an abstract concept, such as 'terrorism', only adds fuel to the fire. I am not surprised that a so-called 'terror-alert' has been put out.

It might be an abstract concept, but its certainly a concept abstracted from a variety of complex material circumstances. I know you aren't necessarily suggesting this, but to say that terrorism only exists in the abstract is a dangerous error.

40 incredibly stupid Facebook reactions to Osama's death:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/40-incredibly-dumb-facebook-reactions-to-osama-bin

Gerostock

There are some positives. The GOP, the party of 'gettin the terrorists', are already weeping over the loss of the 2012 election. Obama did in two relatively subdued years what Bush and Cheney couldn't do in the eight most militaristic years since the second world war.

i wouldn't call stepping up the war in Afghanistan and the increase of action within Pakistan as "subdued"

Jenre

Gerostock

There are some positives. The GOP, the party of 'gettin the terrorists', are already weeping over the loss of the 2012 election. Obama did in two relatively subdued years what Bush and Cheney couldn't do in the eight most militaristic years since the second world war.

i wouldn't call stepping up the war in Afghanistan and the increase of action within Pakistan as "subdued"

Neither would I. Which is why I said it was relative.

Gerostock

Jenre

Gerostock

There are some positives. The GOP, the party of 'gettin the terrorists', are already weeping over the loss of the 2012 election. Obama did in two relatively subdued years what Bush and Cheney couldn't do in the eight most militaristic years since the second world war.

i wouldn't call stepping up the war in Afghanistan and the increase of action within Pakistan as "subdued"

Neither would I. Which is why I said it was relative.

he largely escalated what Bush had started in the middle east, so i don't think it was even "relatively subdued". whatever though. just a minor point

Looking at live video feeds from in front of the White House in Washington and Times Square in New York

yes that was disgusting. some guys were chest-bumping even

The GOP, the party of 'gettin the terrorists', are already weeping over the loss of the 2012 election.

it’s four more years; he also referenced bush in the statement, which neutralizes GOP backtalk. but there is no real distinction between the GOP and the democrats in the get-the-terrorists department. paleocon republicans (like ron paul) voted against the iraq war resolution too.
still, fox cut away at midnight in new york to show TMZ while the other networks kept it going. I guess they couldn’t resist their bit of snideness.

Assasination is probably the right word.

unless you’re the network anchor (I was watching nbc so either gregory or williams) who called the action “being presidential at the highest level: taking the decision to authorize an attack which will result in loss of life” vel sim.

I live in Washington DC next to a college campus so you can imagine what it was like for me. All night there were frat boys going around the hallway of my apartment complex chanting U-S-A and whatnot. Even my roommates (liberal to progressive) got up and went to the white house to join the party. It was as if all of a sudden over the top patriotism was cool again. Just a fucking awful night altogether

Steven.

40 incredibly stupid Facebook reactions to Osama's death:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/40-incredibly-dumb-facebook-reactions-to-osama-bin

this is incredibly awful

petey

yes that was disgusting. some guys were chest-bumping even

ach no.

Soapy

I live in Washington DC next to a college campus so you can imagine what it was like for me. All night there were frat boys going around the hallway of my apartment complex chanting U-S-A and whatnot. Even my roommates (liberal to progressive) got up and went to the white house to join the party. It was as if all of a sudden over the top patriotism was cool again. Just a fucking awful night altogether

that does sound fucking awful

Harrison Myers

Soapy

I live in Washington DC next to a college campus so you can imagine what it was like for me. All night there were frat boys going around the hallway of my apartment complex chanting U-S-A and whatnot. Even my roommates (liberal to progressive) got up and went to the white house to join the party. It was as if all of a sudden over the top patriotism was cool again. Just a fucking awful night altogether

that does sound fucking awful

"The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp."

Chapter 1, Nighteen Eighty-Four

so depressing. Obama, Cameron and Miliband all seem to have the same orwellian scipt as well; we need to be "vigilant" at home and abroad (oppress civil liberties), the world's a "safer place" (we still have a monopoly on terror), etc.

The BBC changed their programming schedule today for National Treasure* followed by a news special

*brief summary: USA USA also freemasons USA

gypsy

Quite a coup for Obama. This will probably see him win the next election just off of this one assasination?

Not that it's incredibly significant which party happens to be running an imperialist nation-state but if someone thinks that the murder of one, albeit important, man will still be significant to the election come nineteen months from now then they must be vastly underestimating how quickly people forget things in the media echo chamber.

Samotnaf

Perfect alibi for no real examination of the body: concern about Islamic practice (how kind) and not wishing to embarrass the Saudis or whoever. Such sensitivity from the US State.

Is there actually any empirical and confirmable evidence which can be shown to the public and / or reviewed by separate organizations? Not trying to be conspiratorial about this, but if there is no evidence presented besides "we did a DNA test" then this could easily be another "there are WMD in Iraq" kinda thing.

I know conspiracy theory ideology becomes a paranoid impotent obsession of the spectacle's omnipotent power without real direction BUT:
Does the following make sense? -
a photo of the dead Osama is released and a few hours later is revealed to be a bad fake;
no actual photo of the dead guy is released;
his body, apparently in "sensitively" keeping with Islamic law , is buried at sea within 24 hours of his death;
Islamic law does not allow for burial at sea in such circumstances - the body has to be buried on land;
the justification for this burial at sea is hinted at in the discussions suggesting a mausoleum or simple grave would become a focus for demonstrations in support of the Great Martyr;
so far no film of the assault has been made even though such assaults are usually carried out by soldiers with cameras on their helmets - the only film so far is of the buildings on fire, filmed from afar.

Perhaps he's been dead for some time and that now it's convenient to claim he's been killed. Why convenient? Because the chances are that this will up the war of Jihad terrorism versus State terrorism. All the better in the name of claiming to have brought it to an end.
The Taliban says it will seek revenge. High security alerts are put on flights. I suspect that those kidnapped by the Taliban have very little chance now of surviving. In France, the photos of 2 journalists who were kidnapped in Afghanistan over 18 months ago, are twice daily shown on the news (for something like 500 days, imbedded in the spectator's psyche relentlessly) with a "lest we forget"-type message and all the towns in France have photos of them hanging up in the squares or wherever. Recently some cadres working for the obnoxious nuclear power company Areva, who'd been kidnapped in Nigeria, were released ( they felt obliged to make a public appeal for France to leave Afghanistan), whilst others kidnapped were kept captive. Don't hold out much chance of their survival. And when these cadres die, the nationalism of the French could possibly become as insipidly nauseating as those in New York etc. Could this be what Glenn Beck referred to, when talking about the uprising in Suez, Cairo and the rest of Egypt, as

"the Archduke Ferdinand moment"

? Perhaps not WWlll but certainly an increase in terrorism which then leads to an even greater crackdown than that which followed the attacks on the Twin Towers.
But why?
A way of cracking down on the progress of social movements, which are bubbling under the surface (France, the UK, Tunisia, Egypt, Wisconsin....have a look at The Tunisia Effect thread). A way of giving an alibi to even greater control of North Africa and the Middle East.

In Lloyd George's "War Memoirs", he said:

In the summer of 1914 there was every sign that the autumn would witness a series of industrial disturbances without precedent...A strong rank and file movement, keenly critical of the policies and methods of the official leaders of Trade Unionism, had sprung up and was gaining steadily in strength. Such was the state of the home front when the nation was plunged into war.

The problem with conspiracy theory is that it's indiscriminate and never tries to understand underlying reasons. But some of these conspiracies exist.

What do you think?

O fuck off all of youse!! I know what this is really about. You're just jealous of our freedoms and our BIG American penis’s.

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

Samotnaf

his body, apparently in "sensitively" keeping with Islamic law , is buried at sea within 24 hours of his death;
Islamic law does not allow for burial at sea in such circumstances - the body has to be buried on land;

You are right about these circumstances. Sharia only allows burial at sea in the case of death at sea when it is impossible to return the corpse to land.

Samotnaf

the justification for this burial at sea is hinted at in the discussions suggesting a mausoleum or simple grave would become a focus for demonstrations in support of the Great Martyr;

Osama was a Salafist, and a pretty extreme one at that. In that tradition the dead are buried in an unmarked grave. They see monuments and even stones above graves as potentially leading to 'Şirk' (idolatry). When the Saudis took Mecca in 1804, they destroyed the monument above the grave of Fatima, and about ten years ago they destroyed the tomb of Mohammed's mother. It would have been extremely unlike for him to have even a simple grave that could have become a focus for his supporters if he had been buried according to his tradition.

Devrim

sabot

O fuck off all of youse!! I know what this is really about. You're just jealous of our freedoms and our BIG American penis’s.

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

Reading my libcom profile I see ;)

By allowing some idiotic Islamists to fly two planes straight into the twin towers and by fabricating an air-raid that supposedly took place at the same time on the Pentagon, the USA not only created the biggest fraud in the history of mankind, but they also fabricated the excuse they needed in order to put into motion a series of long-, and short-term, aims that had already been decided upon. [28] Using “pre-emptive” strikes and the permanent war against the “axis of evil”, which is supposedly threatening the whole “international community”, as its ideological flag, and the deadliest war machine of mass destruction ever assembled as its weapon, the leading faction of the Capitalist International waged war against Afghanistan and Iraq (with more to come) with the aim:

- to further promote the process of "creative destruction" of pre-capitalist subsistence economies ―a steady aim of all capitalist wars for the last 60 years;
- to reverse the generalised crisis of the reproduction of the capitalist relation, created by a demanding and sometimes rebellious “surplus population” and by the politics of deregulation itself;
- to put a break on the extremities of the previous generalised war deregulation by creating protectorates which at the same time function as refugee-, and as “social work” camps for the populations of the attacked countries, thus militarising welfare politics (with the help of the NGO's and of “humanitarian aid”);
- to drag along their "own" population in the war by creating a consensus ideology of panic and animosity against the "failed, pre-modern states of the third world who threaten the security of the developed West and must thus be put under its surveillance", to use the language of the neo-imperialist dogma;
- to put the energy resources of Central Asia and the Middle East under its direct control by increasing the number of occupation forces already stationed there since the early 90's, from the Red Sea up till the Pacific;
- to police the impending social and political disorder in Saudi Arabia and Iran; and, through a pro-USA government in Iraq, to strip Saudi Arabia from any possibility of regulating the production and price of oil, thus weakening OPEC; [29]
- finally, to secure the controlled reproduction of the war economy through which the crisis of over-accumulation in the capitalist “centre” is dealt with, and through which the development of the “free market” in the “periphery” is promoted.

http://libcom.org/library/war-terror
http://www.tapaidiatisgalarias.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/War,%20peace2.pdf

This media event (which I take only an uneasy, vicarious pleasure in) is already being used for ideological purposes by right wing lunatics.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/how-osama-bin-laden-resembled-michael-moore-noam-chomsky-and-others-left

Can you imagine this kind of article being written so quickly? Though the fact that Bin Laden was killed during Obama's reign, there will probably be right wing rhetoric extended against Pakistan. How else can the GOP break the halo that this event has attributed to Obama?

I think we need to put conspiracy theories aside here. Like all others of this magnitude i suspect that planning and carrying out a conspiracy like this would have far too many dangers and risks to make it worthwhile for those who wanted to. Think how many people would need to be aware it wasn't true. What if just one of those came clean and revealed the truth for some reason? It would be the end of the whole Obama administration and the highest military command. What are the benefits to make such a risk worthwhile? Granted the US and all the other countries entangled in Afghanistan can shape this for their own benefit both domestically and in terms of their imperialist escapades but what makes now a better time than at any stage in the last nine and a half years to do it?

If we're concocting conspiracies, how about this one: Everything happened just the authorities claim. But they deliberately made everything look shady so that conspiracy theorists would obsess over the details rather than doing anything politically significant.

You're getting into the realms of south park episodes there!

It would have been extremely unlike for him to have even a simple grave that could have become a focus for his supporters if he had been buried according to his tradition.

i still think some would have visited, if they knew where it was, or even the vicinity. he was admired by more than salafists. but how much a grave would matter to the al-qaeda rank and file i wouldn't know, probably, as you suggest, not much at all.

Can you imagine this kind of article being written so quickly?

actually, yes

How else can the GOP break the halo that this event has attributed to Obama?

by praising the special forces who carried the attack, who were executing a policy formulated by the bush white house. just don't mention obama. this will work for the hardcores, but the party regulars have already used the o-word in their statements. but they're muslosocialist dupes anyway:

The date, May 1, is also a day loaded with political and occult significance. May 1st is known around the world as International Worker’s Day and is celebrated widely. By releasing the news on May Day, President Obama has forced his unwitting political opponents to celebrate the same holiday as socialists, communists, and anarchists. Pretty sneaky, Mr. President

it's true, you know that?

Red-Metta

.It is interesting to remember that the BBC actually announced the collapsing of a building sometime before it actually collapsed, with the journalist stood with the intact building in question just behind her, when she made the announcement.

They also announced that the buildings were collapsing as if they were part of a controlled demolition when they way they fell was consistent with the damage that they took. One problem with 24 hour news is it requires constant talking by people who know very little about a lot of what they are talking about.
I don't buy that conspiracy theory because there simply isn't the evidence, I also have never understood why conspiracy theorists are only willing to treat the official line with any degree of scepticism.

Steven.

40 incredibly stupid Facebook reactions to Osama's death:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/40-incredibly-dumb-facebook-reactions-to-osama-bin

Most of those comments are only stupid, not incredibly so... Also why protect morons' dignity by censoring their names? That's annoying..

ryuit

I think we need to put conspiracy theories aside here. Like all others of this magnitude i suspect that planning and carrying out a conspiracy like this would have far too many dangers and risks to make it worthwhile for those who wanted to. Think how many people would need to be aware it wasn't true. What if just one of those came clean and revealed the truth for some reason? It would be the end of the whole Obama administration and the highest military command. What are the benefits to make such a risk worthwhile? Granted the US and all the other countries entangled in Afghanistan can shape this for their own benefit both domestically and in terms of their imperialist escapades but what makes now a better time than at any stage in the last nine and a half years to do it?

Been readin' chomsky?

double post

How the Osama hit went down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw0AXjAaf3g&feature=youtu.be

http://www.slate.com/id/2292717/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35591378@N03/5680724572

Conspiracy-theorists seem to have a good opinion of their own ability to explain things. Could they then explain why the reaction of a liberal mainstream journalist like Bob Fisk, is so much more political than what they have to offer?

Robert Fisk: Was he betrayed? Of course. Pakistan knew Bin Laden's hiding place all along

A middle-aged nonentity, a political failure outstripped by history – by the millions of Arabs demanding freedom and democracy in the Middle East – died in Pakistan yesterday. And then the world went mad.
[...]
But the mass revolutions in the Arab world over the past four months mean that al-Qa'ida was already politically dead. Bin Laden told the world – indeed, he told me personally – that he wanted to destroy the pro-Western regimes in the Arab world, the dictatorships of the Mubaraks and the Ben Alis. He wanted to create a new Islamic Caliphate. But these past few months, millions of Arab Muslims rose up and were prepared for their own martyrdom – not for Islam but for freedom and liberty and democracy. Bin Laden didn't get rid of the tyrants. The people did. And they didn't want a caliph.
[...]

Chilli Sauce

Reading my libcom profile I see ;)

Guilty as charged, it needed to be said though.

While we're on the subject, when we are talking about conspiracies involving things like 9-11, which I happen to believe, I'll just point it out, we can only look at one thing, evidence. This is where most theories, including the 9-11 theories, lack in most regards. In regards to any 9-11 conspiracy theory, the evidence must be of a particular kind, physical evidence.

Many people in the 9-11 truth movement, aside from being idiotic capitalist republicans of some variety, attempt to create elaborate political theories or justifications for the theory. Similarly those who oppose any theory regarding 9-11 use political theory itself "it seems unlikely that this would happen because it seems politically impossible".

Both of these groups ignore one thing, evidence we can observe on site. Most of the sane people in the truth movement point ONLY to physics and engineering based evidence which absolutely refutes the official story. What does that suggest politically, we don't know exactly (most pretend like they do) , but it seems suggests some form of conspiracy. Beyond that we know next to nothing. I'm not going to bring it up here, thats not what this threads about, and if people care (which in all honesty the people on this forum aren't obligated to, you're all pretty informed) they can do that.

But simply remember, if anyones going to start relating this to 911, use PHYSICAL tangible evidence, not factoids, otherwise we're just guessing in regards to analysis. Thats my two cents on the conspiracy connection.

--

With that in mind, lets apply that to the Osama murder case. So far I have seen no trustworthy evidence of any kind, thus as far as I'm concerned there is no basis for these claims. What does that say about the political system, well thats more complicated, but the primary deduction, that they seem to be lying, is a simple one.

Henry Kissinger is still alive.

Perhaps someone stepped on by this Imperialist swine could fly over the United States and drop a bomb on his house?

I wonder if Obama would mind?

I know it is different but tell me again.

I don't hold with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are loads of other conspiracy theories which are simply crazy - eg that the recent tsunami in Japan was created by HAARP. And I suspect some of the insane excesses of conspiracy theories are themselves plotted in the dusty rooms of various secret services in order to knit a fog of confusion round the genuine conspiracies, to distract people along dead-ends and endless speculation. Not that you'd necessarily need these John Le Carré-types developing fantasies in this society dominated by fictive capital - such theories often develop spontaneously in the minds of isolated individuals feeling overwhelmed by a world and a life escaping their control, encouraged by those who churn them out on the internet as their part-time hobby.

But conspiracies DO exist.

On March 16, 1978, Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro was kidnapped by the Red Brigades and killed 55 days later .

Many in Italy believe that domestic or international government forces were complicit in the murder of Moro, who was due to sign a controversial agreement with the Communist Party on the day of his kidnapping.

(here)More importantly, the social crisis in Italy had developed so far that just a year previously, the CP-dominated local state of Bologna called out tanks against the insurgent youth movement, and the class struggle was hotting up in the factories.

In the UK in 1982 when another summer of riots, this time combined with rail strikes and nurses' strikes, was anticipated, the Argentinian ruling class (who had their own accelerating class struggle) were encouraged to invade the Falklands Islands by the withdrawal of the British battleship Sir Galahad, which had been protecting the islands and which had been moved there previously by Callaghan when the Argentinians had threatened to invade in the late 70s. This was Thatcher's chance to reverse her fortunes (she had the lowest support in the opinion polls ever up to that point, iirc). The war started on Friday, 2 April 1982, with the Argentine invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. On Saturday 3rd April the House of Commons met to authorise the use of troops and battleships etc, with Michael Foot getting into anti-fascist mode to support Thatcher. But at the end of the debate amidst uproar John Nott, Minister of Defence, gave the game away, "If we were unprepared, how is it that from next Monday, at only a few days' notice, the Royal Navy will put to sea in wartime order and with wartime stocks and weapons...preparations have been in progress for several weeks" (see Hansard, 3rd April 1982). Thatcher, a year later, won a landslide partly on the backs of defeating "the enemy without" as part of her plan to defeat "the enemy within".

ryuit:

I think we need to put conspiracy theories aside here. Like all others of this magnitude i suspect that planning and carrying out a conspiracy like this would have far too many dangers and risks to make it worthwhile for those who wanted to. Think how many people would need to be aware it wasn't true. What if just one of those came clean and revealed the truth for some reason? It would be the end of the whole Obama administration and the highest military command. What are the benefits to make such a risk worthwhile?

I'd guess you'd only need a couple of men in the know to actually be there in front of "Bin Laden" in order to kill him, possibly making such a mess of his head as to make him unrecognisable. The rest of the assault team could have been easily kept in the dark, believing the reasons for the attack to be genuine. On the conspiracy-hatching end of the plot, you'd need quite a few more, but not that many, and besides their class interests would help make them keep stum. Your question "What are the benefits to make such a risk worthwhile?" I've already answered in my post 29.

Let's not get distracted by the web spun round 9/11 - its conspiracy stories. Keep our eye on the ball - ie on what's happening now.

It's a lot easier hiding something where only a few dozen paid high-clearance operatives and high-ranking officials had access to. 9/11 wasn't anything on that scale at all. You're not going to have hundreds of credible witnesses to it, victim's families, thousands of NTSB and FEMA agents on the scene, etc. For all anyone around Pakistan knows, including the guy who started tweeting it when he didn't realize he was, there was a big military operation attacking a house, and some people were killed. They haven't even kept the body - they threw it out to sea on a flimsy excuse.

Ocelot refers to Fisk's article, in which he says at the end:

Of course, if we are all wrong and it was a double, we're going to be treated to yet another videotape from the real Bin Laden – and President Barack Obama will lose the next election.

But this misses the possibility, as I said in post 29, that he died some time ago, which is a far more likely scenario (Obama's not that stupid as to pretend he's been killed with the chance he might return from the grave) and that his death has been saved for this historical moment.

Kind of like a reverse-Kagemusha.

I'd guess you'd only need a couple of men in the know to actually be there in front of "Bin Laden" in order to kill him, possibly making such a mess of his head as to make him unrecognisable. The rest of the assault team could have been easily kept in the dark, believing the reasons for the attack to be genuine. On the conspiracy-hatching end of the plot, you'd need quite a few more, but not that many, and besides their class interests would help make them keep stum. Your question "What are the benefits to make such a risk worthwhile?" I've already answered in my post 29.

My guess would be it would take more people than you would think at the planning stage to implement this although granted you would only need a couple actually there to carry it out. I also don't deny that there are obvious benefits which accrue to the US, British, French etc. but if he has been dead for ages, why wait until now? Think of the political advantages for Obama if he had released this news six months ago right in the midst of the mid term elections. Or, going even further back, if they had done it only a few weeks after Obama launched his new 'surge' in Afghanistan, imagine the instant success he could have claimed. Why not do it a couple of moths ago when the Arab uprising first broke out and try and take the heat off that? I think much explanation is needed for why this particular moment is so significant in order to start believing these conspiracies

why wait until now?...Why not do it a couple of moths ago when the Arab uprising first broke out and try and take the heat off that?

As all-pervading as hierarchical power is, it too can be taken by surprise by events challenging its domination, and usually takes its time, and long discussions into the long nights, to work out the best moment to put its strategy into effect.
Besides, May and after has often been the occasion of social contestation springing into action, and clearly there's a global re-awakening that's rising after the long winters of cold bitter repressions; so pre-empting all that is very likely part of their thinking.

The problem with this argument is that you are making an assumption that the Government is hiding something and then fitting a narrative around that. This seems to be the case with all conspiracy theories, decide the conclusion to begin with and then search for some 'evidence' which supports it. The truth is that no matter when bin Laden had been killed there could have been reasons found to suggest that it was a timely ploy by the government for some reason or another. Like i said, if he had been killed last October it would have been slammed as a move by the democrats to win the mid terms. Similarly if he had been killed at any stage in the last four months the argument which you put forward would still have been plausible.

I saw an article that argued that Obama had deliberately scheduled it to cut off the end of The Apprentice and screw Donald Trump. I wasn't convinced.
Obviously it's possible he could have previously died and this moment was picked for unknown reasons, I remember an article a couple years back that said that due to Bin Laden's health problems he'd probably died anyway but it served the interests of the Taliban Alqaeda etc to keep him as an active figurehead. The thing about most conspiracy theories is that they mix the bloody obvious, the slightly obscure, the downright implausible and coincidence together. Much like The Da Vinci code.

The problem with your arguments is that you are making an assumption that the Government has nothing to hide and then fitting absoutely no narrative around that. Regardless of whether this conspiracy is one of the genuine ones or not (I'm not into most conspiracy theories, as you should know from my posts here), no-one has yet explained why they destroyed the body, why there's no genuine photo of the body, and why the assault and killing - according to anything I've seen so far - wasn't filmed close up. But then maybe you'll be able to come up with a mix of

the bloody obvious, the slightly obscure, the downright implausible and coincidence

to explain why the official version of events is true. Because it just seems

downright implausible

without any of the other stuff so far.

How else can the GOP break the halo that this event has attributed to Obama?

by praising the special forces who carried the attack, who were executing a policy formulated by the bush white house. just don't mention obama. this will work for the hardcores

crikey i was right

Describing bin Laden as "the public face of Islamic terrorism," Palin said American troops' "courage and their determination brought us justice." She went on to say, "We thank President Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory."

palin

Samotnaf

[...] why there's no genuine photo of the body, and why the assault and killing - according to anything I've seen so far - wasn't filmed close up. [...]

The official line being put out by UK & Irish news is that Obama insisted on special forces rather than drone attack precisely in order to get the photos, videos, etc. Given the amount of spin going on at the moment it appears the intention is to feign reluctance to release the photos with some references to Geneva Conventions etc, so as to look like 'public pressure' has forced their hand when they do release the photographic and video material. One could also speculate that this initial 'reluctance' may be part of an attempt to increase the impact of the images to people around the world who will be being told that it wasn't Osama for the next days or weeks, so that when clearly recogniseable images are produced, they discount all the conspiracy theories they've been laden with by the deniers. Maybe. I find it hard to believe that the US would intentionally build up all this hype around the video (see pics and footage of Obama, Clinton & National Security heads watching the live stream, like an advert for a new video game) if they were unable to deliver the "product". Naturally this will not convince those who believe the moon landings were faked, etc, etc.

But all this conspiracy shite is always a deflection from genuine class politics - in this case that the man who's death has had the most effect on galvanising the 'oppressed arab masses' in their struggle for freedom, is not Osama bin Laden but Muhammed Bouzizi. Conspiracy theory is always about denying real agency to the working class - hence why the Italian CP promoted it to explain the vritual civil war in Italy from the late 60s to early 80s - dientrologia is always reactionary in content and intent.

That publicity pic for "Death of Osama, The Movie", coming to a multiplex (or Youtube exclusive) near you soon...

I'll bet good money that some of the people involved in planning this gig, briefly seriously considered filming it in 3D (probably on the 3-4th day without sleep).

Yeah, the conspiracy stuff being spoken by some new posters on here is ridiculous.

With regard to video/photos, they couldn't publish them because parading the dead is not permitted under the Geneva Convention. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they were leaked or released at some point to stop speculation.

If it is a conspiracy, why now? There doesn't seem to be much reason for it. No doubt people will join up some random dots and come up with a dumbo in the room.

But all this conspiracy shite is always a deflection from genuine class politics

Since I made it clear that the attack on the class struggle is an essential part of the reason for this possible conspiracy (note: I've always said "possible"; I'm certainly not as dogmatic as those who think conspiracies don't exist - "Zinoviev letter? history will prove it was genuine!"), clearly this can't be aimed at me.
However, I concede that, even if a conspiracy exists (absolutely no evidence so far exists to show that Osama was killed yesterday) the essential thing is the counter-revolutionary use of it: the miserable spectacle of "community" in the US, the increased likelihood of terrorist activity (and the possible transformation of the struggles in the Arab world, where Al Quaida has so far had no influence whatsoever, into pro-Jihadist madness, or at least its characterisation/caricaturisation as such), the increased presence of armed military everywhere, the distraction from the struggles that have been happening all over the place and probably a few more miseries resulting from this show...
It seems bizarre to me, though, that all those who are quick to dismiss conspiracies are as dogmatic as those who wallow in them. The Falklands war was clearly a "conspiracy" (ie allowed to happen in order to undermine the class struggle). You could go overboard and fetishise it, but you can do the opposite as well - both to the detriment of understanding the world in order to change it.

With regard to video/photos, they couldn't publish them because parading the dead is not permitted under the Geneva Convention. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they were leaked or released at some point to stop speculation.

Are you joking? What exactly is the Geneva Convention on this? The amount of photos in the media of dead bodies of people killed in combat is endless. Besides, what about the fake photo of the dead Bin Laden? Was it the fact that it was fake that meant that it didn't contravene the Geneva Convention?
As for Mr Jolly :

If it is a conspiracy, why now? There doesn't seem to be much reason for it.

- do you bother to read these posts? I, at least, have given reasons - the fear of the escalation of class struggle globally.

Somehow most of you here just continue your reactive attitude to the stupidity of conspiracy theories with its equally moronic undialectical opposite - that there are never any conspiracies. If anybody can tell me anything about the official discourse so far about yesterday's events that rings true (other than the fact that Obama is President of the USA), I'd be interested to hear it. Or maybe it's the fact that it all sounds like really crude bullshit (including animated computer generated cartoons of the assault, still pictures of a room full of bourgeois scum looking at a screen you can't see etc.) that somehow proves that it's true - after all, if they were faking it they'd do it better.

I just wanted to make it clear that in this situation the distance between what actually happened and what is being reported can be much greater than in the case of 9/11, simply because the latter was so much more public. Ultimately Osama's assassination is of propaganda import to the Obama administration and to Al Qaeda, and not much else, so I'm not really going to lose sleep over it either way. I wonder why they threw the body out to sea - maybe to cover up the fact that his killing was unnecessary - but, well, it's not really that essential.

gypsy

Quite a coup for Obama. This will probably see him win the next election just off of this one assasination?

Negative. The election is still a year and a half away, and lots of things could effect the outcome. The economy will be a huge factor, and also it will depend in part on whether the GOP can find a viable candidate. Remember Bush I lost an election a mere 7 months after the conclusion of the Gulf War, at which point he was sporting a 91% approval rating.

The anti conspiracy people seem to be the ones being dogmatic here. This is exactly what I was talking about in my first post. People claim things were conspiracies, or not conspiracies, often not based on tangible evidence, but rather based on their political world view.

"What incentive would they have to hide this from the public?"

I have no clue, you tell me. But that question is irrelevant. We have been offered no evidence of the body, and so, absent evidence, why is it implausible for people here to call "fake!"? I personally don't think its insane to doubt things absent evidence, I'd hope others would agree here, regardless of our political imaginations.

In this particular case we have statements by the White House and news reports as evidence. It may be very dubious evidence, but it still is information that it makes sense to take into account. It's not true to say that there isn't any information at all. (Also, we have learned that the initial claim that Bin Laden was armed was later retracted. It would seem to be useless to retract a statement about something that did not happen).

NoRefunds

Both of these groups ignore one thing, evidence we can observe on site. Most of the sane people in the truth movement point ONLY to physics and engineering based evidence which absolutely refutes the official story

I don't know what you mean by "the official story" but if you are reffering to the idea that the the two main buildings of the WTC coplpsed as a result of being hit by airoplains and set on fire and that at least of other building (WTC 7 i think?) colapsed as a result of being hit by debries and set on fire then you are absolutly wrong.

do you bother to read these posts? I, at least, have given reasons - the fear of the escalation of class struggle globally.

The cult of OBL has little traction in the struggle in NA and the middle east at the moment. Even more moderate groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are haemorrhaging in Egypt. Its seems to me it will only really have an effect in American or Pakistani politics, but as someone pointed out, its not particularly near the presidential election.

My conspiracy, Maybe AQ sees its influence slipping and wanted to re energise its organisation, tipped off the yanks. The Yanks are just happy he is dead and also quite happy that there is some conspiracy around it all to dissipate anger.

Angry Arab on the conspiracy theories

Let me first address the various conspiracy theories about his death that are being circulated in the Arab world. I feel that I may be the only one (naively in their eyes) who buys the general story that US forces killed Bin Laden. All the smart Arabs I know don't believe anything about the American story. I realized that the US is so hated and that its arrogance and self-righteousness are so jarring to Arab ears, that they feel it is their duty to disbelieve anything coming out of the American government. There is so much skepticism: many believe that Bin Laden had long been dead or that he was in the US custody, or that he had been working for the US all along. Sep. 11 is now more unbelievable than ever among Arabs and Muslims: I may seem naive in shooting down all Sep. 11 conspiracy theories...

The problem with your arguments is that you are making an assumption that the Government has nothing to hide and then fitting absoutely no narrative around that. Regardless of whether this conspiracy is one of the genuine ones or not (I'm not into most conspiracy theories, as you should know from my posts here), no-one has yet explained why they destroyed the body, why there's no genuine photo of the body, and why the assault and killing - according to anything I've seen so far - wasn't filmed close up. But then maybe you'll be able to come up with a mix of

Quote:

the bloody obvious, the slightly obscure, the downright implausible and coincidence

to explain why the official version of events is true. Because it just seems

Quote:

downright implausible

without any of the other stuff so far.
.

The absence of the body does not automatically mean that there has been some conspiracy. Think about it, even if they had killed him months ago and had planned to release the news at a more convenient time do you not think they would have been smart enough to take a picture of the body for when they actually needed it? It would have been just as easy to get a picture of him dead then as it would be now so the absence of the body doesn't suggest that he has been dead for a long time at all.

You have to look for a clear motive when claiming these things and I accept that you have put forward some reasonable points but I just don't believe that they are convincing enough to act as the 'opportune moment' which the authorities would theoretically be waiting for to break this news

My huge problem with conspiracy theory is not that our rulers lie - duh! - but that it allows them to set the agenda. There's a passage in Fabbri's "Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism" where he talks about the trap of people assuming that whatever the class enemy says is wrong must be right and vice versa. Politicians are not stupid, they know this effect (that people will argue the opposite of whatever they assert) and they use it to steer the public debate away from questions that might be dangerous to them. So the question of whether Osama was really killed or whether he was legally killed, is a distraction from the relevant question of "who the fuck is/was Osama anyway?"

In that frame, I find the accusations from NoRefunds and Samotaf that "anti-conspiracists" are being dogmatic, most pernicious. First of all, there is an implication that anti-conspiracists are mainly folk who accept the official story in complete credulity. I'd like to think that a review of this thread by any critical reader would show that this is a strawman.

What anti-conspiracists (and I accept the term) refuse is the pretence of competence that "the powers that be" like to project, and that conspiracists reinforce at a higher level of appearance, is just that, a pretence. The "powers that be" are bureaucrats who couldn't find their arse with both hands - hence why we so often are able to run rings around them, despite the enormous asymmetry between their resources and ours.

Now we're getting to the unravelling of the initial story phase. So the question is (i.e. about the target being armed) , is the unravelling of the first story all part of the conspiracy? Or is it just another example of tactical responses to systemic incompetence?

Anti-conspiracism is not a negative - it is not the lack of belief that the executive of the ruling class lie - but a positive. It is that liberatory thinking refuses the speculative and metaphysical perspective that assumes (like theists) that behind the veil of appearances of evil or incompetence, there is a "hidden hand" of an unseen power that is omnipotent and infallible. This is gnosticism, not communism.

While I think celebrating the death of anyone is fucked up in the extreme, remember who this guy was for a minute before you judge the people who were in front of the White House last night. For the American public, this represents the death of someone who killed thousands of people and has been an internationally recognized Biggest Dick Ever for at least 10 years now. But it doesn't make it any less fucked up that there's celebrations in the streets over the death of one man we haven't even heard anything from since 2007.

The first thing I thought when I heard he was dead was, "What is the US gonna do for an enemy now?"

ocelot

Anti-conspiracism is not a negative - it is not the lack of belief that the executive of the ruling class lie - but a positive. It is that liberatory thinking refuses the speculative and metaphysical perspective that assumes (like theists) that behind the veil of appearances of evil or incompetence, there is a "hidden hand" of an unseen power that is omnipotent and infallible. This is gnosticism, not communism.

I agree with this part of your post entirely, which is why I think it's pointless to stress issues like these when it comes to real social change.

However if we're on the subject of the matter, which we are, I'm just offering my opinion that I see no real evidence aside from that which has been given to me by the state, which, as you say, lies all the time. I accept however, that this issue is totally irrelevant when it comes how our political system functions.

Yeah the story is mutating by the hour, so now we have:

1311: According to an interview with CIA director Leon Panetta on PBS, there was video of the approach to the compound but no direct video feed from the operation itself. Mr Panetta said there was a twenty five minute blackout once the team went in.

1309: Despite widespread reports that President Obama and others watched the Bin Laden operation happen live, it is now clear they did not see the shooting itself, says the BBC's security correspondent Gordon Corera.

(from bbc)

A likely story...

You'd have to say that so far, textbook media management this ain't.

Still, I guess they'd much prefer people to be arguing over whether bin Laden's killing was "legitimate" or not (safe in the knowledge that most people don't care), than whether it was significant or not.

[...]
Iran, for once, spoke for millions of Arabs in its response to Bin Laden's death. "An excuse for alien countries to deploy troops in this region under the pretext of fighting terrorism has been eliminated," its foreign ministry spokesman has said. "We hope this development will end war, conflict, unrest and the death of innocent people, and help to establish peace and tranquility in the region."
[...]

From Bob Fisk's piece today - If this is a US victory, does that mean its forces should go home now?

In other words (sarcastically) - "Well done. Now sod off"

NoRefunds

We have been offered no evidence of the body, and so, absent evidence, why is it implausible for people here to call "fake!"?

because if he wasn't killed, he'll let us know: he has the habit of issuing taped statements. and the administration knows that he'll let us know. so they made as absolutely sure as they could that it was him.

Yeah, far too easy for Osama to prove himself alive by getting a flunky to convey a tape to Al Jazeera. The other alternative, that yer man died a while back, while seemingly more possible to carry off, has the complications of family. At the moment (on available info) the survivors of the raid on the compound are in hospital in Pakistan, including one of his wives (the one that got shot in the leg) and the 12 year old daughter who gave the interview to Al Arabiya (nb Saudi channel) alleging that she was made to witness dad's execution (see here). So that would mean that you're having to involve probably the ISI at the least, to carry off the Pakistan end, plus there's the problem of the rest of the (immensely wealthy) bin Laden family, some of whom will be presumably turning up (or sending their servants) to look after wife & kids etc, who are not going to be taken in by impersonators, etc, etc. It's just too complicated - too many parts, too many people, too many unpredictable variables.

Be interesting to see what pull the bin Laden family has over the body thing. A number of islamic commentators have already said they're more upset about the disposal of the body than the killing itself.

petey

NoRefunds

We have been offered no evidence of the body, and so, absent evidence, why is it implausible for people here to call "fake!"?

because if he wasn't killed, he'll let us know: he has the habit of issuing taped statements. and the administration knows that he'll let us know. so they made as absolutely sure as they could that it was him.

In case anyone thinks that they can't fake Bin Laden videotapes

However, if he did die last week, the part that I find most frightening is it that it was a cowardly extra-judicial execution of an unarmed person on foreign territory - hardly "justice" at all!

wojtek

petey

NoRefunds

We have been offered no evidence of the body, and so, absent evidence, why is it implausible for people here to call "fake!"?

because if he wasn't killed, he'll let us know: he has the habit of issuing taped statements. and the administration knows that he'll let us know. so they made as absolutely sure as they could that it was him.

In case anyone thinks that they can't fake Bin Laden videotapes

However, if he did die last week, the part that I find most frightening is it that it was a cowardly extra-judicial execution of an unarmed person on foreign territory - hardly "justice" at all!

If you've just now found that frightening, you haven't been paying attention. At least this wasn't execution-by-drone.

wojtek

In case anyone thinks that they can't fake Bin Laden videotapes

and fail, in case your comment was meant seriously

However, if he did die last week, the part that I find most frightening is it that it was a cowardly extra-judicial execution of an unarmed person on foreign territory - hardly "justice" at all!

crikey

One resident of Abbottabad told the Guardian yesterday: "It's going to destroy property prices in this area". How's that for a conspiracy?

I would think that he's dead and I would think that elements of the US state have known where he's been for ages. Does his death hasten the exit of of the US from the Afpak theatre? Not a bit, because its presence there wasn't concerned with him but with wider geo-strategic issues including Iran. Osama was actually a bit of an "asset" to the US - but now past his sell-by-date. The administration is certainly strengthened by his death and the bourgeoisie everywhere jump on the bandwagon.

There's talk that he was never on the CIA payroll. Maybe not. But in the 80s he was blasting and bulldozing roads through the mountains of Afghanistan that just happened to end up in the exact places that the CIA wanted to deliver their heavy ordnance to. Even when he turned foe, some years later, he could have been taken out any number of times.

I agree with Sam's analysis above of the nature of the Falklands War and the British bourgeoisie; ie, a patriotic war directed against rising class struggle.

baboon

One resident of Abbottabad told the Guardian yesterday: "It's going to destroy property prices in this area". How's that for a conspiracy?

I would think that he's dead and I would think that elements of the US state have known where he's been for ages. Does his death hasten the exit of of the US from the Afpak theatre? Not a bit, because its presence there wasn't concerned with him but with wider geo-strategic issues including Iran. Osama was actually a bit of an "asset" to the US - but now past his sell-by-date. The administration is certainly strengthened by his death and the bourgeoisie everywhere jump on the bandwagon.

There's talk that he was never on the CIA payroll. Maybe not. But in the 80s he was blasting and bulldozing roads through the mountains of Afghanistan that just happened to end up in the exact places that the CIA wanted to deliver their heavy ordnance to. Even when he turned foe, some years later, he could have been taken out any number of times.

I agree with Sam's analysis above of the nature of the Falklands War and the British bourgeoisie; ie, a patriotic war directed against rising class struggle.

Again there's no evidence for any of the theories that are circulating regarding a planned mission by the government to undermine social movements, or fuck with the left, or the Arab uprisings in general. What we are doing here is proposing theories that cannot be proved or disproved, a total waste of time

While I think celebrating the death of anyone is fucked up in the extreme, remember who this guy was for a minute before you judge the people who were in front of the White House last night. For the American public, this represents the death of someone who killed thousands of people and has been an internationally recognized Biggest Dick Ever for at least 10 years now

This is typical of the American psyche in its relations with foreign enemies. Somebody talked earlier in this feed about people in the west being in a 'permanent state of childishness' and I couldn't agree more with that assertion. The image of Americans outside the White House celebrating Bin Laden's death conforms to the very simplistic outlook prevalent in Hollywood culture that its 'us against the world' and that there is a definitive line which can be drawn between good and evil in this conflict. Bin Laden was the devil incarnate whereas America is the embodiment of supreme goodness. Its that simple. So in condemning these crowds who chant U-S-A mindlessly while waving their stars and stripes we are really condemning the simplistic attitude which doesn't ask the obvious questions like was it worth ripping apart Afghan society at a cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives just to kill one man? Or how will this death make the west safer from jihadi terrorism? These questions are never discussed and its due to this collective jingoism in society where people celebrate incidents like this in the same way as they would victory in a football match. Safe to say this is an attitude that the ruling elite must count as one of their greatest assets in their attempt to retain their power and prestige

Seriously WHY would the US fake Bin Laden's death???

Firstly this is not something that the American public are begging for. Osama was off the radar and no criticism had been labeled on Obama for not getting him. Sure it will boost his ratings, but so do lots of things. As another poster pointed out Bush I lost 7 months after the Gulf War. Just because a party stands to gain from a certain event does not mean it's a set up.

Secondly if it's a fake and Bin Laden pops up in a weeks time then Obama will be in so much shit, the democrats will be shown to be so desperately bad at protecting America that they lie about it. It is much more likely that Obama wouldn't get re-elected if its a fake, than vice versa.

This is also the fundemental reason why 9/11 wasn't an inside job... If Cheney is caught crawling around on all fours planting cartoon TNT then he and everyone connected with the administration are finished. Not only that but the federal government itself would probably fall apart as no-one would trust them ever again.
The key to so called conspiracy theories is to look at what each side gains compared to the risk of being caught. So the CIA organizing death squads in El Salvador or Guatemala is real because the reward of setting up pro-western free markets greatly outweighs the risks, proven by the fact no-one has done anything about it.

The most likely reason is usually incompetence. Key information is classified not only to protect those involved but because events like 9/11, JFK etc are highly embarrassing already even without the detail.
In this case Bin Laden as set to be armed so as to justify killing him, his wife as a human shield vilifies him even further and the body at sea so as to stop his grave becoming a shrine. The most likely set of events before the killing was that the Pakistani military knew where he was for some time then used this information as leverage with the USA, probably to try and reduce the hated Drone attacks.

Finally as for "USA! USA!" frat boy shit, I don't like quoting Gary Younge but I will...

If "they" (Patriots) killed Bin Laden in Abbottabad then "they" also bombed a large number of wedding parties in Afghanistan, "they" murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and "they" gang-raped a 14-year-old before murdering her, her six-year-old sister and their parents near Mahmudiyah.

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling

Seriously WHY would the US fake Bin Laden's death???

Firstly this is not something that the American public are begging for. Osama was off the radar and no criticism had been labeled on Obama for not getting him. Sure it will boost his ratings, but so do lots of things. As another poster pointed out Bush I lost 7 months after the Gulf War. Just because a party stands to gain from a certain event does not mean it's a set up.

Don't think that our limited perspective on the political situation can at all compare to the plans of those in power. We have no idea what the bourgeois elites want when it comes to specific details.

Secondly if it's a fake and Bin Laden pops up in a weeks time then Obama will be in so much shit, the democrats will be shown to be so desperately bad at protecting America that they lie about it. It is much more likely that Obama wouldn't get re-elected if its a fake, than vice versa.

Not if he was previously dead or in league with everything, which is a possibility seeing as he was a boy in the 80's and his existence has aided the oil bourgeois more than anyone I can think of.

This is also the fundemental reason why 9/11 wasn't an inside job... If Cheney is caught crawling around on all fours planting cartoon TNT then he and everyone connected with the administration are finished. Not only that but the federal government itself would probably fall apart as no-one would trust them ever again.
The key to so called conspiracy theories is to look at what each side gains compared to the risk of being caught. So the CIA organizing death squads in El Salvador or Guatemala is real because the reward of setting up pro-western free markets greatly outweighs the risks, proven by the fact no-one has done anything about it.

That would be a reasonable critique if it didn't contradict onsite evidence. The risk is high, I admit, and it seems crazy to me too if you think about it in a political context. But when you look at the physics of the situation, which any reasonable and intelligent person would base their analysis on, exclusively, you can easily come to the opposite conclusion. We cannot confirm or negate any conspiracy based purely on a political context. Indeed the conspiracy in El Salvador is true not because it made sense for the US to eliminate the priests but because we have evidence which proves they did. This is the same with all political theory, show me the evidence, not some a priori you think proves this or that conclusion.

Interesting discussion about conspiracy, but I agree with baboon. I don't think they would take the risk of faking this.
Has anyone commented on the fact that US military has already changed its account of what happened? Initially there was a firefight and bin Laden was gunned down, like it was the OK Corral (although some say that was just a massacre too, and the Earps were no better than the Clantons). He was also using one of his wives as a human shield, so that's why she was killed. Then it emerged that she hadn't been killed but shot in the leg as she ran towards bin Laden or towards one of the soldiers, in other words to protect him. And a general someone or other (I'll find the Guardian link in a bit) also admitted that he was unarmed but they shot him anyway. Now I see a thing on Yahoo saying his daughter, who was also there, claims that he was first taken prisoner and then shot. The last thing they wanted was to capture him and put him on trial
No surprises, just to be clear about how the big mobsters work.
Much as it may grieve him, I also agree with Samotnaf about the Falklands. Now that was a good example of how the bourgeoisie conspires against the workers....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change?intcmp=239

NoRefunds

Don't think that our limited perspective on the political situation can at all compare to the plans of those in power. We have no idea what the bourgeois elites want when it comes to specific details.

We can make a rough estimate based on past behavior and interests involved. But even if we take your point of view, there really is no point in speculating at all.
NoRefunds

That would be a reasonable critique if it didn't contradict onsite evidence. The risk is high, I admit, and it seems crazy to me too if you think about it in a political context. But when you look at the physics of the situation, which any reasonable and intelligent person would base their analysis on, exclusively, you can easily come to the opposite conclusion. We cannot confirm or negate any conspiracy based purely on a political context. Indeed the conspiracy in El Salvador is true not because it made sense for the US to eliminate the priests but because we have evidence which proves they did. This is the same with all political theory, show me the evidence, not some a priori you think proves this or that conclusion.

What onsite evidence? The NTSB and FEMA were all over the place. The physics of it is really very simple: planes hit building causing structural damage and fires, causing further structural disintegration followed by collapse. Debris ruined at least one other building in the area. Another plane hit part of Pentagon. What is there in the "physics" of it that doesn't work out for you, exactly?

Red-Metta

The White House - that is Obama - is now saying that the photograps of Bin Laden's body will NOT be released, probably because the bullet wounds will tell the story of just how he was killed, if indeed, he was killed at all. I remember rumours that the Astronauts of the various Apollo missions witnessed UFO activities on their missions. NASA always claimed these stories were lies, and then, suddenly, a documentary appears featuring Buzz Aldrin talking openly about a UFO sighting, followed by a photograph of apparently the same object, taken by the crew of a later Apollo mission! At least NASA eventually provided a photograph.....

Chomsky has pointed out how released internal government documents have discussed how it is in the government's interest to keep releasing information on the JFK assassination every 10 years so that those people who are constantly theorizing on who was really responsible for the killing will keep focusing their energies on a futile quest to find the real killer.

My point being that this discussion is fairly irrelevant

Red-Metta

I remember rumours that the Astronauts of the various Apollo missions witnessed UFO activities on their missions. NASA always claimed these stories were lies, and then, suddenly, a documentary appears featuring Buzz Aldrin talking openly about a UFO sighting, followed by a photograph of apparently the same object, taken by the crew of a later Apollo mission! At least NASA eventually provided a photograph.....

i've read about that as well. they think it might have been a bit of the rocket that broke free, but there was no way to verify it (it was travelling alongside them at the same speed as their rocket)

moving off of that subject...
I think the important thing is not to create a narrative around a lack of proof. certainly pose the question, but don't theorise too much about it... (i'm not really accusing anyone on this thread of doing it, i'm talking generally)

I speculate that Obama simply wanted to avoid the tremendous political migraine that would have arisen from a trial of bin-Laden. He would have been subjected to heavy pressure from his near-disillusioned liberal base to give bin-Laden a fair trial. And, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Independents and Republicans would determinedly oppose a civilian trial and state representatives would refuse to allow one within their jurisdiction. Such a row would menace the surge in his approval ratings that would come from bin-Laden's capture. So, he requested an execution and hasty disposal somewhere in the Arabian Sea. Who's going to complain about injustice to bin Laden?

Well, that's just my speculation anyway.

For the moment, I don't feel like going into all the ins and outs of a possible faking of the death (though the fact that it's "too risky" seems ridiculous as an argument: if you look at what John Nott said at the end of this debate on the Falklands invasion, you'd realise that even if things get revealed, the vast majority of people ignore these revelations and accept the dominant official line) and the ideological distortions of my point of view by some people here.

The essential thing is to look at the consequence of this show, in particular the chances of an increase in Al Quaida, and other jihadist, activity;
take, for instance, this about Nigeria:

ABUJA-CHIEF of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Oluseyi Petirin, and the Service Chiefs, yesterday, held a marathon meeting that lasted nine hours in Abuja following strong intelligence reports of plans by some groups to use the killing of Al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, to vent their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the 2011 presidential elections and cause crisis in the country....
Sources said the calculation of those behind the plot was that after the mosque prayers of Friday, attacks would be launched on unsuspecting citizens and destruction of property would go on simultaneously in a manner that would show that Moslems are unhappy with bin Laden’s death in the hands of a predominantly Christian nation.
On Sunday May 8, it was gathered that the group would shift attention to the churches, particularly in the North and attack Christians in churches to give the impression of a holy reprisal. The goal, it was learnt, is to provoke counter attacks from Christians from other parts of the country and eventually cause chaos in the polity.

Sure, this is Nigeria, where there have already been some very nasty unpleasant and, as far as I can see, completely unrevolutionary, riots but this is the kind of thing that could spread to North Africa and elsewhere, where the fundamentalists have had no success at all so far in derailing the class struggle, but could use this as an opportunity. Plus the deaths of hostages kept by the Taliban that are very likely imo, which could provoke a wave of support for the various States of the countries from where these hostages come.

It's for this reason - the desire to intensify the War On Terror as a method of repressing the class war (and nothing to do with a trivial narrow interest in re-election on the part of a section of the bourgeoisie) - that I feel that this death, whether having already happened some time ago or, as is officially stated, just a couple of days ago, is very useful for the ruling class. Already round where i live, there's been an intensification of machine gun-toting military at stations and airports, just so we get used to feeling protected by our wonderful State.

At the beginning of the Falklands war almost everyone i knew, including myself, thought the whole thing was a joke, like something out of the Marx Brother's "Duck Soup"; it was only as the war progressed into actual deaths and propaganda, that we realised the whole seriousness of the situation, almost literally derailing the class struggle (one returning battleship had a massive banner on the side referring to an impending rail strike: "You launch a rail strike and we'll launch an air strike"; the strike was called off shortly afterwards). The constant changing of the stories and the statement that if they released a photo of his death it could provoke a wave of sympathy for him, look like a 2011 version of the semi-surrealist cock-ups in the Marx Brother's fight for Freedonia, but the joke could turn very very sour. The global situation is far more dangerous than 1982 UK, and the stakes are high: a renewal of explosive class struggle like in 1917 or 1968 globally is not what the ruling class want, particularly as their options are far more limited than in those epochs. The repression is already taking place massively in the UK and elsewhere; just imagine, after the hopes of the last few months, how it'd be if there was a return to the classic spectacle of Good v. Evil of modern capitalism v. Islamic fundamentalism, this time at a far greater extensive level.

Just for the record, there is already a photo doing the rounds on FB that looks fairly plausible. If it turns out to be one of the ones they will eventually release, then the current pose of "we don't want this to be floating out there" is complete baloney, as it looks like they've already leaked it.

edit: ...or then again, maybe not breakingnews.ie: 'Dead bin Laden' photo a fake

Gerostock

I speculate that Obama simply wanted to avoid the tremendous political migraine that would have arisen from a trial of bin-Laden. He would have been subjected to heavy pressure from his near-disillusioned liberal base to give bin-Laden a fair trial. And, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Independents and Republicans would determinedly oppose a civilian trial and state representatives would refuse to allow one within their jurisdiction. Such a row would menace the surge in his approval ratings that would come from bin-Laden's capture. So, he requested an execution and hasty disposal somewhere in the Arabian Sea. Who's going to complain about injustice to bin Laden?

Well, that's just my speculation anyway.

I think that and if they had arrested him and put him in jail I would imagine they would figure there would be lots of tourist/aid worker kidnappings with the demand to release him all over the place, so it would be easiest to just kill him

Wasn't there a South Park episode about that? The hunting party where everyone has to ritually intone "Look out! It's coming right for us!" before blasting the bunny, bird or whatever, to kingdom come.

I'm pretty sure that "Look out! He's reaching for a weapon!" is a generally accepted trope in the grittier cop shows for cops urging each other to shoot the perp even though he's got his hands up and is unarmed ("we'll plant one on him later").

Anyway...

The blatant and aggressive nature of the operation raises the question as to whether the US military action in this instance, was an act of international terrorism?

I'm sure that's the question the powers that be would love us to be asking. For three reasons:

1) 99.999% of working class people the world over (including bin Laden supporters) don't give a flying one for the legal niceities.

from which follows...

2) To argue that the majority of w/c people are stupid not to worry about the legal niceities is to alienate yourself from the class - because it's objectively wrong, w/c people know damn well it's not the absence of liberal legalisms that are the reasons they are getting screwed. Remember "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence". Also the hyperbolisation of language is pathetic - an "act of international terrorism"? The hundreds of Pakistani civilians killed by US drone attacks - that's international terrorism, not some guy who everybody and his dog, supporters included, knew had it coming (and indeed welcomed it).

and finally, and more importantly...

3) Osama bin Laden ceased to matter many years ago. What matters today are things like the Saudi oppression of the Bahraini majority via the GCC with the tacit support of the USA. Ditto the support for the Saleh regime in Yemen, and Assad in Syria. Forget bin Laden.

I mean just go to the Guardian or BBC sites and see what's streaming in the Live Blogs now. Where for the last 2 months or so we've been getting Live blogs from the MENA uprisings, now its all Osama-shite. Goodbye Arab Spring, Western media has a better game to play now. From paying attention to what really mattered to what really doesn't matter. That's the real conspiracy right there. And all the conspiraloons that jump on the band wagon are part of the same process. Conspiraloons, want to confront the conspiracy? Look in the mirror. You are the conspiracy. The Conspiracy of Fool.

edit: hmm. maybe i need to cut down on my morning coffee intake... :|

There's stuff above about conspiracy theories generally and specific mention of the actions of the US in Latin America in the recent past that is included in posts above. To me the idea that the Lords of the Earth do not plot and scheme, in a word conspire, is as ludicrous as the idea that a couple of lizards are running the planet.

There's a wealth of detail of the conspiratorial nature of US imperialism in Latin America during the 20th century. The recent Wikileaks show that the Palestinian Authority was set up involving the British and Egyptian secret services as an extension of Israeli repression. This wasn't down to a strange set of coincidence and random events but real pre-planning, agendas, funding, placements and so on.

Conspiratorial action is the lifeblood of imperialism and if we put a microscope on any imperialist hot-spot we find it. Take a historical joke of a country like Laos in the 1960s: the CIA was active in setting up governments, changing governments, providing arms, logistics, etc; forced marches, massacres, generating warfare, gangsterism and heroin production. The same had previously applied to the French ruling class in Indo-China and the same applied to every major area of the region.

In the aftermath of WWII, the US government, its secret services agencies, the trade unions, the Corsican and Italian mafias were all active in actions, some closely coordinated, against the working class and for the needs of post-war US imperialism. Again there's a wealth of detail available just around the question of the important port Marseille alone.

But there's a difference between covert operations and the conspiracy theories that agglutinate around events like the JFK assassination, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. The latter are reactions to mediatised spectacular events that consist of directing the imagination to why "the official story" must be a lie. Because these reactions are entirely media spectacle-driven, they are open to being led around by the nose.

Conspiracy theory takes true elements (that governments lie to the media and people, that the state has agencies that engage in covert ioperations) and uses them as building blocks, mixed with the mortar of the paranoiac imagination, to construct a fantasical superstructure to defend psyches threatened by the existential angst of a world without god or other forms of caring, potent authority. The problem is alienation and lack of real political analysis.

The media create a huge spectacle that Osama has been killed? Therefore, immediately, either he is alive, or else he was already dead. It must be so. Now to look for the evidence or concoct it. Imagination as negation.

Whereas sceptical imagination can easily see where all these fanstastical constructs fall apart on contact with the challanges of reality. Conspiracy is just the spectacle in the mode of being denied. As such it is an obstacle to autonomous critical thought, and has nothing to offer the project of recomposing workers power.

ocelot: you seem to be as dogmatic as the conspiracy theorists, and to be merely reactive to them. In all my posts, at least, (and No Refund's as well, as far as I can see) i have presented the idea of Osama's death well before May 2nd as a possibility and have given reasons as to why they might have decided that now was a good time to present this massive spectacle (to distract from the chance of exploding class struggle). All you've done is apply a general critique of conspiracy theories, which is generally correct, to the possibility that this particular event didn't happen just a couple of days ago and have tried to fit all theories about this possibility as part of the conspiraloon mentality. This critique of obsessive conspiracy theory loons has nothing to do with any posts I've seen here. And for the moment, you and everybody else so far have ignored my post 97 this morning, where I hardly even mention this possibility but concentrate on how this spectacle is being used and could in the future be used. As I have done before. It seems like it's you who's being an anticonspiracy loon almost as much as conspiracy theory loons. It seems you've got an ideology through which you ignore what's being said .

I should start this post by declaring myself as guilty as anyone on this feed of doing this but the point is not whether it is or is not a conspiracy, its the fact that this is what's being talked about. This is the main focus of discussion for most people and that's fantastic as far as the ruling classes are concerned.

I mean just go to the Guardian or BBC sites and see what's streaming in the Live Blogs now. Where for the last 2 months or so we've been getting Live blogs from the MENA uprisings, now its all Osama-shite. Goodbye Arab Spring, Western media has a better game to play now. From paying attention to what really mattered to what really doesn't matter. That's the real conspiracy right there

Completely and utterly correct. Suppose Samotnaf is right (not ignoring the fact that you are only hypothesizing) and bin Laden has been dead for months, what difference does it make? The government lies and uses the lies to conduct class war against its citizens and those of other countries. Do you really need this one event to show you that that is the case? Regardless of whether it is a conspiracy or not the event is being used to shape the world agenda and as long as we focus on the fine details of an event which may or may not have taken place and doesn't matter either way we are only fucking with ourselves

Suppose Samotnaf is right (not ignoring the fact that you are only hypothesizing) and bin Laden has been dead for months, what difference does it make?

It doesn't make much difference; as I said

this death, whether having already happened some time ago or, as is officially stated, just a couple of days ago, is very useful for the ruling class. Already round where i live, there's been an intensification of machine gun-toting military at stations and airports, just so we get used to feeling protected by our wonderful State.
At the beginning of the Falklands war almost everyone i knew, including myself, thought the whole thing was a joke, like something out of the Marx Brother's "Duck Soup"; it was only as the war progressed into actual deaths and propaganda, that we realised the whole seriousness of the situation, almost literally derailing the class struggle (one returning battleship had a massive banner on the side referring to an impending rail strike: "You launch a rail strike and we'll launch an air strike"; the strike was called off shortly afterwards). The constant changing of the stories and the statement that if they released a photo of his death it could provoke a wave of sympathy for him, look like a 2011 version of the semi-surrealist cock-ups in the Marx Brother's fight for Freedonia, but the joke could turn very very sour. The global situation is far more dangerous than 1982 UK, and the stakes are high: a renewal of explosive class struggle like in 1917 or 1968 globally is not what the ruling class want, particularly as their options are far more limited than in those epochs. The repression is already taking place massively in the UK and elsewhere; just imagine, after the hopes of the last few months, how it'd be if there was a return to the classic spectacle of Good v. Evil of modern capitalism v. Islamic fundamentalism, this time at a far greater extensive level.

It would be more useful focussing on these developments. And look out for an intensification of Taliban or AlQuaida activity, particularly in those areas of class war where so far they have had no influence whatsoever:

The death of Osama bin Laden has been followed by demonstrations in places like Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
But the killing has had nothing to do with the marches.
In fact, few protesters seem to view the al-Qaida leader as a Martyr.

My favourite bit is when they shot him in the face and dumped him in the sea, "out of respect for Islamic tradition."

According to Sky News, al-Qaida has confirmed that Osama is brown bread and is vowing to fight on.

Every national ruling class seems to be trying to profit from this event to promote their own versions of "order". The British bourgeoisie for example has been distancing itself for some time from the USA's "War on Terror". Now there's a drip of leaks from the government that says in future terrorism and terrorists will not be defined by "Islamism" but by being against core British values which, according to today's Guardian, include being "against democracy, equality and renouncing the support for violence".

Where is that Guardian article?

Do you think thats an attempt to move the threat of terror from fundamentalism towards something far more "enemy within" more political, or was it just suggesting that "Islamism" is dispersing into plenty of different connected but almost unrelated strands?

Page 13, "Anti-terror strategy".

The British state has long used Islamic terrorism, jihadism, as part of its arsenal in inter-imperialist rivalries, hence the appelation "Londonistan" given to it by its French and German rivals and the news last week that an Algerian jihadist was still working for the British secret services.
Terrorism, the war on terror, has been used to strengthen the repressive apparatus of the British (and other) state for some time. But I think that we will see the continuation and deepening of the "threat of terrorism" applying to the "enemy within" and particularly to militant, revolutionary elements.

Red-Metta:

any question of legality was literally superceded by the fact that he thought that the US had now made the world a safer place!

This is something you bring up constantly; an earlier reference by you to "legality" was responded to, quite rightly, by ocelot saying:

1) 99.999% of working class people the world over (including bin Laden supporters) don't give a flying one for the legal niceities.
from which follows...
2) To argue that the majority of w/c people are stupid not to worry about the legal niceities is to alienate yourself from the class - because it's objectively wrong, w/c people know damn well it's not the absence of liberal legalisms that are the reasons they are getting screwed.

You didn't respond to these points of his. Who cares about bourgeois legality in these cases? The Gulf War of 1991 was perfectly legal, and so were the subsequent vicious sanctions. Did that make them ok? Of course not: legality might be useful to appeal to if you're contesting an illegal arrest or eviction or whatever (rather like having an insurance policy on where you live), but otherwise it's just a liberal-lefty moral notion that somehow the organisation of conflict between States and other powers can be settled by some appeal to the law as an external authority.

Tojiah

What onsite evidence? The NTSB and FEMA were all over the place. The physics of it is really very simple: planes hit building causing structural damage and fires, causing further structural disintegration followed by collapse. Debris ruined at least one other building in the area. Another plane hit part of Pentagon. What is there in the "physics" of it that doesn't work out for you, exactly?

If you really want I could respond to this, but it would take a large amount of room and shift the discussion from what we're currently talking about. I'd prefer not to do that. I also accept that "who did 911" is is an irrelivent question not because of what it reflects, which is shocking, but simply because there are litterally thousands of other examples that show the nature of US imperialism without the need to relentlessly argue about conspiracy or not.

I agree entirley with Samotnaf. On top of that if you guys are paying attention to Red Metta's posts, this story is becoming increasingly filled with bull shit. The glass is half empty.

Red-Metta: I think you misunderstood NoRefunds post: I'd guess he was talking about the official story of the death of Bin Laden, not what you've been saying yourself about these stories.
However, your appeal for "unity " seems like an appeal to shut up about differences in perspective. Pannekoek said the working class isn't weak because it's divided, it's divided because it's weak. A clash of views is part of a struggle against false forms of unity (besides, the whole notion of belonging to a "left", when historically the left has usually meant the old Stalinist parties, or the Trots or the Labour Party or some other horrible State capitalist perspective, has nothing to do with my identity; though maybe you don't mean this notion of "the left").

About your earlier post (#116):
I talked about conflict being

settled by some appeal to the law as an external authority.

or you could talk about "settled by some appeal to justice as an external authority." Hierarchical power is inevitably hypocritical, inevitably unfair, and it's something i began to learn consciously (ie could begin to understand its social reasons) several decades ago, way before

the collapse of the Soviet Union

. Class society has always involved elements of

arbitrary execution, imprisonment, torture, deportation, poverty, and starvation

Yes, it's fundamentally horrible but to simply complain about the hypocrisy without being explicit about its reasons and its material base is an appeal to some nicey nicey external notion of fairness, ie an appeal to, say, the UN or some hypothetical state to resolve the contradictions that arise from the power of existing states or whatever hierachical organisation you'd wish to name; but justice comes from below , from the authority of the struggles at the bottom of the hierarchy. I don't give a toss whether Bin Laden was killed legally or not, any more than I'd give a toss about whether Cameron, Obama or whichever State terrorist was killed legally or not?! The question of law in this instance is irrelevant.
Maybe you know this, but think it's important to appeal to some outside notion of morality in order to be acceptable. That's what your argument seems like to me. But real justice is unacceptable to all those who are either directly involved in maintaining this society or to those who imagine they could become the "good neutral" form of "justice" in some future State or a modification of existing States. Real justice doesn't care for legal niceties (except as a practical reformist necessity in certain instances if such legal niceties work).

I'm assuming they're saving the photo for a special occasion they've published photos of the bloodied corpses of the other three men killed. The argument about a weapon could have been avoided by simply saying he had one. It does suggest to me that it is true but who knows.

I don't dispute the dishonesty of the ruling classes nor the ability of people to overlook clear evidence of this (everything done by the CIA in the 80s for a start). But without any evidence conspiracies do look ridiculous.

To Red-Metta,
I meant the official story. I find your posts to be quite rational.
Love, NoRefunds

Boris Badenov

My favourite bit is when they shot him in the face and dumped him in the sea, "out of respect for Islamic tradition."

wahhabis are not known for being into making shrines out of graves as well...

xslavearcx

Boris Badenov

My favourite bit is when they shot him in the face and dumped him in the sea, "out of respect for Islamic tradition."

wahhabis are not known for being into making shrines out of graves as well...

No but protests at funerals are not uncommon and there aren't many countries that would have wanted to accept his body. Personally I'd have left it in Pakistan for the fireworks.

agreed, nevertheless the reason given for his body being dumped into the sea was to prevent it becoming a shrine. anybody with the most basic knowledge of islamic history and knowledge of wahhabis destruction of shrines centred around shia imams, sufi saints, and even the prophets grave if the saud family hadn't intervined would know that is an entirely unsatisfactory explanation, and cause it is so shit, it does, unfortunately, lend further 'data' to back up all sorts of conspiracy theories.

There are logical reasons why they would get rid of the body, and perhaps I would believe them if they had waited. The fact is, they did not, and there was no analysis done by any credible third party source, nor was anything saved or distributed which could have allowed such an analysis in the future. There was no reason to get rid of the body within a day.

Not having a body gives them a lot of leeway in spinning the story however they want. Just like in Israel, when Muhammad a-Dura was killed in a firefight, and there was this whole issue of who exactly hit him, and the IDF demolished the whole area in front of a CBS reporter. I doubt it's because they knew the IDF bullets hit him, but the less physical evidence, the easier it is for them to spin it whichever way they want.

Only one bin Laden defender shot at Seals

The Americans who raided Osama bin Laden's lair met far less resistance than the Obama administration described in the aftermath.

The commandos encountered gunshots from only one man, whom they quickly killed, before sweeping the house and shooting others, who were unarmed, a senior US defence official said in the latest account.

In today's (NZ time) revised telling, the Navy Seals mounted a precision, floor-by-floor operation to find the al-Qaeda leader and his protectors - but without the prolonged and intense firefight that officials had described for several days.

Apparently the pentagon just released some footage of the compound.

Thoughts?

Just on conspiracies generally:

I agree with Ocelot that there's a distinction to be made between covert actions and "Conspiracy Theories", but the latter idea is useful for undermining any attempt of analysis of the manoeuvres of the bourgeoisie which are generally conspiratorial.
If we agree that the bourgeoisie, because of its nature, plots and schemes and then enacts such plots and schemes in relation to covert activity undertaken by diplomacy, the secret services, the military and the "civilian" aspects of the capitalist state, then surely this "conscious" state, or the elements of it that are set up to be its consciousness, is aware of its mortal enemy?

That the ruling class is intelligent must be beyond doubt given that it is the ruling class with all its privileges and most of the rest of us live in shit. Then such a class has a memory and is aware not only of its imperialist rivals (whom it constantly plots and schemes against) but its only potential gravedigger. To this end it will set up and reinforce certain bodies, the trade union of which are one in my opinion, it will foment war and it never stops building up an arsenal of overwhelming repression against the working class.

The case of Marseille and the workers' respone after WWII is instructive: we see the whole gamut of weaponry thrown against the class: the agencies of the US state, the CIA (including psycops), trade unions (established US unions and local unions set up from nothing), the Corsican and Italian mafias, the Resistance (the main component of newly set-up CRS repressive force), elements of the Gestapo, and so on. I think that the conspiratorial nature of the ruling class is part and parcel of it and that has nothing to do with lizards running the planet (except in allegorical terms, though in my opinion that's an insult to lizards).

If capitalism depended on the individual intelligence of its rulers then it would have been toppled by now. It survives because it can use stupidity just like it can use ingenuity. It is opportunistic, and creates many opportunities it can then further exploit. If anything it is very bad at planning, which is why it is so irrational and destructive.

It seems to be becoming increasingly clear that the US state didn't want Osama to face a court since (1) it would give him a platform (2) would reveal some embarassing truths about his former CIA employers (3) Obama would be in the difficult position of having to bow to the public's demand for his execution whilst in principle opposing the death penalty. It was politically expedient to put a bullet in his head and dump him in the ocean, even if it contradicts their rhetoric about 'international law' and fair trials.

Is that really suprising to anyone with even a brief familiarity with US history?

Capitalism doesn't depend on the individual intelligence of its rulers, if by rulers you mean its political leadership. In fact some of these rulers are deliberately selected for their stupidity - Bush Jnr. comes to mind. But it's not these "rulers" that run the world but the committees and agencies of the state. The intelligence of these shouldn't be underestimated.

Capitalism is not an irrational and destructive system because it is bad at planning but because of its inherent economic contradictions that make its continued existence more and more irrational and destructive.

bush wasn't stupid. he wasn't the smartest president we've ever had, but he wasn't stupid. i don't know that gore or kerry was terribly much brighter, surely a bit, but any of those would have done more or less the same job keeping the government where the capitalists wanted it to be. and one of those (gore) was popularly elected, and the other might have been, so "selected for" is a strange phrase to read.

A few minutes ago on BBC 24, the presenter Ben Brown who was responsible for this hilariously biased interview described the extrajudicial killing of Osama Bin Laden as "one of the greatest triumphs" of Obama's presidency.