55 thoughts on “Did U.S. Execute Osama bin Laden? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Obama didn’t fear OBL dead body, he feared the retaliation of the Muslim world, who treats OBL as Assad As-Islam.
    Obama had no other choice but to execute OBL and dump his body ASAP. keeping OBL alive would have caused a volcano to explode in the Arab world, from Islamabad to Jakarta, retaliation in the Muslim word is bad enough, from Al-Aqsa to Gaza, From Sheikh Raed Salah to Sheikh Ul-Azhar
    Most of the times, the speeches in Arabic will not make headlines in the West (language barrier i guess) but look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrp9007dcf8&feature=player_embedded#at=12

    This is but a glimpse of the true opinion on western actions shared by many in the Arab / Muslim world today.

    This speech was given in Al-Aqsa (out of all places) because in Israel there is no censorship as there is in any other Arab countries, Ironic but an Imam in Al-Aqsa can say whatever he wants (no censorship applied) while the Imams in Cairo, Jada, Islamabad, Tehran, Damascus or any other Arab city has to carry the msg. of the local Government.

    This is an ideological / theological struggle, and the west will loose.

    1. I guess you know three or four words in Arabic, and ‘assad’ is one of them. I can understand that you call youself ‘Assad al-Quds’ (the lion of Jerusalem), but that some consider Oussama Ben Laden the ‘Assad’ of Islam, sounds pretty unrealistic to me. Since when did ‘assad’ become a particular Islamic name ?
      You reminds me of a certain Shamseddine who a couple of month ago was obsessed with the Hourah. Any close family member of yours ?

      Your praise of the ‘Israeli freedom of speech’ also sounds pretty suspicious to me.

      By the way, no Arab would transcribe Djeddah as ‘Jada’ (reminds me of Shada instead of Shehadeh/Shehada). Jeddah or Jedda, yes, but never ‘Jada’.
      Hasbara Debunked 101

        1. The facts are that this guy on another file pretends to be a Lebanese and a Muslim all while praising the Israelis for not killing any Lebanese civilians.
          Those are facts. Maybe you don’t care but I’m sure others do. This guy has never been an Arab, and his faking should be taken into consideration while reading his comments.

          1. If you have nothing else to say, at least spell it correctly: AD HOMINEM. Maybe you don’t know what it means either …

      1. Of course. In your eyes, everyone who dares say a positive thing about the “wicked” state of Israel is automatically an “hasbara” drone working for the Zionist “regime”. Trust me, the Israeli “regime” is far too disorganized to mount such an organized hasbara campaign on online blogs. Most of us here are just patriots who dislike the crazy treatment Israel is getting.

        What this guy wrote is quite true, as much as you’d hate to admit it. In “apartheid” Israel, Arabs have more freedom of speech than in every other Arab country. That is a fact. In Israel, there are Arab MK’s who speak in public about the dismantling of the state of Israel. I don’t see that happening anywhere in your “enlightened” Arab world, where hundreds and thousands of Muslims and Arabs or being massacred for merely wanting freedom. But still, with all the bloodshed and crazy revolutions going on in the Arab world – it’s Israel that’s the “evil” state of the region.

        Such hate.

        1. the Israeli “regime” is far too disorganized to mount such an organized hasbara campaign on online blogs.

          Not only is the MFA doing precisely what you claim it isn’t, but the IDF is also doing it & both have bragged of this publicly in the media. I guess you missed the Hasbara Briefing on this??

          Arabs have more freedom of speech than in every other Arab country.

          Except the “bad” Israeli Palestinians who the Shabak tortures & imprisons because they, um, opened their mouths too much. So where’s the avowed freedom of speech? You mean they have freedom to say what’s OK with Shabak for them to say, right?

          there are Arab MK’s who speak in public about the dismantling of the state of Israel.

          Nope, not really. If they want to dismantle anything (& they usually don’t speak in these terms anyway), it is Jewish privilege & Jewish supremacy, NOT the State. Just shows you don’t even read what MKs in your own country say. Not to mention that every one of those MKs is at one time or another under police investigation for treason or various other criminal acts. Not such a free country for ’em is it?

          All the crap about the alleged vices of the Arab world are, once again, off topic. Read the comment rules before commenting here again.

          Such hate.

          Such ignorance, such propaganda, such hasbara…

          1. “Not only is the MFA doing precisely what you claim it isn’t, but the IDF is also doing it & both have bragged of this publicly in the media. I guess you missed the Hasbara Briefing on this?”

            LOL. The IDF and the MFA are so horribly understaffed they couldn’t possibly take this responsibility. Also, I think the MFA and IDF have better ways to spend their narrow resources than responding to silly blogs. Come on.

            “Except the “bad” Israeli Palestinians who the Shabak tortures & imprisons because they, um, opened their mouths too much. So where’s the avowed freedom of speech? You mean they have freedom to say what’s OK with Shabak for them to say, right?”

            Your view of reality is very strange. Shabak arrests people who are actively involved in assisting terrorists. Of course, you will never believe this, since in your eyes, an Arab can never be justly arrested. You think it is always a conspiracy and nothing I say will change this strange view. Incidentally, there are many Arabs who are actively speaking for the dismantling of Israel. They are never arrested. On the other hand, those who are arrested are relatively mild in their public treatment of Israel (For example Ameer Makhoul, who is hardly as vocal against Israel as Hanin Zua’bi).

            Regarding your “rules” – if you allow yourself to bash Israel using unfounded, hateful allegations, then I most certainly should be allowed to praise Israel’s right of free speech. Or are praises of Israel forbidden in your blog?

            By the way, it is soon independence day in Israel. I intend to go out on the streets, raise the Israeli flag and sing ha-tikva with everyone else. If that makes me an “hasbara” drone, then so be it.

          2. Here’s the way things operate around here and PAY ATTENTION. Read the comment rules, carefully. We work on facts. Once a fact is verified or established, that’s what it is. It isn’t something that’s debatable or refutable unless you use facts to do so. YOu don’t get to dispute a fact with an opinion not based on fact. Understand? Good. So continuing along these lines in future will cause yr privileges to be restricted.

            Haaretz has documented both programs, their budgets, their staffing levels & the staff supervising the projects. I wrote posts here linking to both articles. Those are what’s known as facts. YOu don’t get to dispute them just because you want to. Capice. You get to dispute them if you have real facts that do so. If not, you accept them as facts. If not, refer to what I wrote above.

            Shabak arrests people who are actively involved in assisting terrorists.

            You yrself concede that Ameer Makhoul was “hardly vocal.” Which big bad terrorists did he actively assist? The gardener in Amman who was a Hezbollah agent when he wasn’t protecting the environment and seeding lawns? How ’bout Dirar Abusisi. Where is the credible evidence he was Hamas’ leading rocket engineer? I’ve debunked virtually all the claims adduced by Shabak in his case. Do you have anything more substantive than that?

            there are many Arabs who are actively speaking for the dismantling of Israel.

            This is the 2nd time you’ve made this claim. The first time you attributed these views to Israeli Palestinian MKs w/o supporting it. Now you raise it in an even less substantiated way. Again, a big comment rule violation. You support claims or opinions with facts & evidence. If you don’t, refer to above.

            I most certainly should be allowed to praise Israel’s right of free speech.

            You may write whatever you wish as long as it is fact-as opposed to fantasy-based. Israeli Palestinians have restricted free speech and are ruled by a largely Shabak controlled state as far as they are concerned (not quite the same as for Jews, unless you’re marked as one of the undesirables).

            Another warning, if you’re here to score points or grandstand, that’s not what the comment threads are for. They’re for discussion & debate. Telling us you’re going to fly the Israeli flag isn’t discussion or debate. It’s flag-waving. You can do that somewhere else. Speak to the point. Argue carefully & factually. You’ll have no problems. Don’t & you will.

          3. Yonatan,

            Palestinians living in Israel do face significant inequalities and injustices. Comparing their situation to that of people in neighbouring Arab countries only emphasises the inequality, because you’re implying that they ought to be grateful for the perks of living in Israel – as though they are really outsiders who don’t have an automatic entitlement to these things. Palestinians living inside Israel are not Syrians, Yemenis, or Lebanese, but Israelis, and so when we discuss their rights the only legitimate point of comparison we have is the Israeli Jewish community. Do Palestinian Israelis have the same rights as their Jewish fellow citizens? Unfortunately not.

            I see the consequences of injustice and oppression first-hand in my work here. Administrative detention is one example – people taken from their homes in the middle of the night and held indefinitely without charge or trial. In my work in Dheisheh refugee camp I have met ex-prisoners who never found out why they were imprisoned or why they were released. All they know is that they spent years of their lives in jail, without ever knowing whether they would see their families again. They never had a lawyer or a court case. Others were arrested for political reasons – such as participating in student societies at Bethlehem University. Membership in a student group is outlawed under military law, which means that young people who get involved in politics during their university career are liable to arrest. That goes for people who are involved in organisations that are dedicated to non-violence.

            I can understand the desire to believe that the Shabak only arrests terrorist suspects. It is very painful for Israelis to realise that the army is capable of arresting young men and women whose only crime is to pass out leaflets in opposition to the occupation. It’s equally hard for them to accept the inequalities faced by Palestinians of Israeli citizenship…and why wouldn’t it be hard? No compassionate person wants to believe that he’s complicit in oppression. Israelis are fundamentally compassionate, like human beings everywhere.

            I will celebrate independence day too, but it will be a different kind of celebration from what is typical. I can’t celebrate what happened in 1948, because the consequences are living just down the road from me in Dheisheh camp. Those people have suffered in a way that most Israelis either don’t know about or consciously try to push away. But if I can’t celebrate how Israel came into existence, I can at least celebrate what it has the potential to become. I have found much to like in Israeli people and culture. True peace activism embraces that, and makes the most of it.

          4. Yonatan, please read and respond to Vicky’s comment. What do you think? She brings a very human and personal perspective of someone who’s witnessing these things daily. I hope you can engage in a meaningful discussion with her.

  2. Hmmmm. Do get a sense of doubt, Richard? The more the US administration contradicts itself as to what really happened, the more the world will disbelieve the BS it is putting out. I’m still waiting for any evidence that it was really Osama they got. I believe that this was a political attempt to make Obama a hero and it seems to be backfiring.
    There are just to many unknown knowns to make it credible.

    1. Gene, if they were making it up, why now?

      One has to be deep into disbelief to think that this was a charade.

      1. fuster, have you ever heard of the election cycle? 2012? Obama’s approval rating just went up 10 points today. That’s why now.

        Deep, deep disbelief.

        1. Gene, I have heard of the election cycle, and anyone knowing much about it would realize that something such as this, and the resulting bump, don’t last 20 months and certainly wouldn’t be sprung at a time when the Republican Party is so disarrayed as to how not even a ghost of a frontrunner or a hope in hell of defeating Obama except for a disaster or another economic meltdown.

          the timing is all wrong and your fantasy doesn’t fit.

          1. Obama doesn’t need a bump through Nov. nor does he need his popularity due to the Bin Laden killing to last that long. It will be in the consciousness of every American when they pull the lever. As I said, so many Americans have wanted him dead for so long, they will not forget the president who accomplished this. Why else do you think George Bush is refusign to join Obama at Ground Zero tomorrow? And I say this as someone who is critical of the killing & critical of Obama.

          2. I am not alone:

            The Agendas Behind the Bin Laden News Event

            By Paul Craig Roberts, May 04, 2011 “Information Clearing House”

            The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, “was not armed.”

            The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as ‘the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.” http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43817

            Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs , but the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.

            Carney blamed the changed story on “the fog of war.” But there was no firefight, so where did the “fog of war” come from?

            The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.

            No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government’s story that “we got bin Laden,” the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?

            According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, “the mastermind.” Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet. Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli allies and inflicted humiliation on the “world’s only superpower” on 9/11.

            When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged “discrepancies” that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex.

            There is no doubt that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government’s story is not believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released, someday.

            As one reader put it in an email to me: “What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible.”

            Governments have known from the beginning of time that they can always deceive citizens and subjects by playing the patriot card. “Remember the Maine,” the “Gulf of Tonkin,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “the Reichstag fire”–the staged events and bogus evidence are endless. If Americans knew any history, they would not be so gullible.

            The real question before us is: What agenda or agendas is the “death of bin Laden” designed to further?

            There are many answers to this question. Many have noticed that Obama was facing re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama’s poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported, “the glow of national pride” rose “above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent.”

            In Washington-think, a 24% rise in approval rating justifies a staged event.

            Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar’s rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually–an easy way to have a major spending cut.

            If this is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama’s agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it. CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden’s killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate “homegrown violent extremists” into making terrorist attacks. “Homegrown violent extremists” is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like “suspect,” the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.

            Various parts of the government quickly seized on the success in killing bin Laden to defend and advance their own agendas, such as torture. Americans were told that bin Laden was found as a result of information gleaned from torturing detainees held in Eastern European CIA secret prisons years ago.

            This listing of possible agendas and add-on agendas is far from complete, but for those capable of skepticism and independent thought, it can serve as a starting point. The agendas behind the theater will reveal themselves as time goes on. All you have to do is to pay attention and to realize that most of what you hear from the mainstream media is designed to advance the agendas.

  3. The Muslim religion prescribes that burial be within 24 hours of death.

    Burial at sea is accepted.

    American officials stressed Monday that the sea burial followed Islamic custom. “The disposal of — the burial of Bin Laden’s remains was done in strict conformance with Islamic precepts and practices,” said John O. Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, who added that the administration had consulted with Islamic experts.

      1. I gather that a sharp knife to the throut would be the correct protocol. well, at least in palestine.

    1. @ Susan Hemmer)
      No, this is simply not true, and someone with even basic knowledge of Islam knows that. As Muslims pray pointing towards Mekka, so should they be buried in the same way.

      Burial at sea is ONLY accepted when you die at sea and there’s no possibility to give a proper burial. And the Americans did a huge mistake, showing once again that they have NO clue about other cultural and religious values.

      This will only add to Oussama Ben Laden’s status of “shahîd” (martyr) among some extremists.

      By the way, since when have American officials become specialists on Islamic customs ?

      PS. I just read a statement from the Head of Al Azhar, Sheik Ahmed Tayeb, condemning the immersion of the body. This is the best article I found in English:

      And just in case: I do not regret his death, but would have preferred a trial. I guess he knew too much …

  4. If he had armed bodyguards and there was a firefight, then he was just another casualty. I would have preferred to have had him arrested and turned over to the ICC in the Hague for trial for crimes against humanity. I doubt whether that would have been politically possible for Obama. You are right that the footage, if it exists, should be released, but I am not going to sit shiva for bin Laden.

  5. Richard,

    There are people like me who believe that Osama has been dead for a while now perhaps like for a decade. That is the reason for “burial at sea” after his “official” death since there is no proof needed. Islam does NOT mandate burial at sea when the person is dead on land. Only if it will take a long time to reach land, burial at sea would be allowed. By officially killing Osama, I am expecting two things to happen. Either Obama is thinking of withdrawing from Afghanistan or creating grounds to invade Pakistan.

    I am hoping its the first of the two.

    1. @AJ I was going to say the same. I believed when Benazir Bhutto said OBL was dead, now almost 10 years ago… It didn’t do her much good.

    2. and I guess you’d say that those video messages al jazeera aired from time to time were forgeries, right?

    3. I agree with the first part of your statement. But pull out of Afghanistan? Maybe a few foot soldiers, but they aren’t going to leave 20 -30 bases around the country unmanned. Those are necessary to ring Iran and all the other Stans that have energy resources the Western hegemony wants to protect. That’s why we’re in Libya too – to control the Mediterranean.

  6. Was it legal to kill Usama Bin Laden ?

    Imagine there is a very large spreadsheet on which are listed all the merit points and demerit points of all 6 billion people alive today on Planet Earth. The real tzaddiks are at the top, i.e. Righteous people whose whole life is committed to making the world a better place. At the very bottom are those intent on killing, harming and maiming as many people as possible. The top of the ladder people have view the universe as stable, ordered, benevolent and expansive. The cellar dwellers have a contractionary, violent, myopic, chaotic frame of reference. On any scale Usama Bin Laden was way down the scale. It is never an easy decision to take a life, but as mastermind of the heinous crime of Sep. 11th, 2001 he deserved to die. Whether he was armed or not is irrelevant. It is possible to redeem some evil energies but Al Qaida still poses a threat to world peace. With the head of the snake gone things are different.

    Regarding the public displays in America…

    Maybe it is not revenge that you saw in Times Square and outside The White House but relief. President Obama has been very measured and non-triumphalist in regards to the death of UBL. He does not want to inflame the Muslim world. Most fair minded Muslims realise that UBL killed many of their brethren and had gone off the deep end. Why even the PA leaders stated that his death was a positive for world peace. The USA is a free country. President Obama cannot control how people react.

    Regarding the possibility that Zawahiri will be the new leader of Al Qaida…

    This scenario brings up memories of that whack-a-mole game. I think anyone thinking about taking over the reins of Al Qaida should consider another career. It is not a good game to be involved in.

    Regarding the release of photos…

    President Obama is holding the photos back to make people trust him. Truth can be extremely powerful when revealed at the right time. Sometimes revealing things too quickly when the audience is not ready is counterproductive.

    1. There’s something highly ignoble about circumventing justice and trying to justify having done so. Also, I’m not buying your black vs white analysis. Life is much more complex than that. Evil is in all of us and no side in this war on terror is completely devoid of evil acts.

      I’m of the opinion that you will never achieve peace through killing and death, but that each death merely reactivates the eye for an eye cycle.

      I’m not keen on viewing a photo of the unrecognizable corpse of a man with a gaping hole in his head, but I would like to see videotape proof that they confronted OBL or find out if his other wives were asked to i.d. the body, if relatives were present at the burial or have a relative from the compound interviewed by the press.

    2. he deserved to die.

      Sorry, but Jewish tradition which, if you’re a Chabadnik & claim to revere, does not allow the murder of someone in cold blood when it might be possible to capture them & bring them to justice.

      Whether he was armed or not is irrelevant.

      Sorry, quite relevant esp. under international law.

      With the head of the snake gone things are different.

      Nonsense, nothing is different. This is a serpent with hundreds of heads. YOu can’t possibly sever them all. Besides, what will you do when a Muslim kills a president or prime minister & makes the same claim?

      President Obama is holding the photos back to make people trust him.

      YOu don’t make people trust you by disseminating false scenarios about Bin Laden’s assassination/murder/execution.

      1. No cold blood killing in Jewish tradition? maybe in your version…
        “V’ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam.”
        The above sounds a little cold to me.or how about “sh’mot” 22:20
        Seem like if you want to freely practice another religious you should be destroyed…
        Not the tolerant stuff that you call Tikkun Olam?

      2. Richard wrote: “Sorry, quite relevant esp. under international law.”

        Question: If Osama Bin Laden’s death was an Israeli-style, extra-judicial murder that violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and various rules of International law, would you advocate bringing the perpetrators of this murder to trial by the ICC given that it is highly unlikely that they will face prosecution in the the US or Pakistan? The US has already admitted that he was unarmed, the shot that took him down was precise and designed to kill – this has all the hallmarks of the type of Israeli operation you have in the past described as a potential war crime and that you believe invokes ICC jurisdiction.

        1. I think it would make a very weak case for 1000 reasons. But if bin Laden did not resist then yes I would favor bringing the case to the ICC.

          The idea of killing unarmed people no matter how evil they might be is a very bad one when you can try & punish him in a court of law.

        2. Well, absent a trial and an investigation by an impartial court, how would we really know if he offered any resistance? One scenario has his wife shielding him, then she is shot in the leg, at which point she probably fell thus exposing an unarmed Bin Laden. Then we know Bin Laden was shot in the head by highly trained commandos. Sounds like an extra-judicial execution to me.

  7. I have a kind of built-in radar that detects half-truths and blatant lies and it’s usually quite reliable, and I can affirm that Brennan’s press conference yesterday was riddled with holes.

    To those out there who state that the Administration wanted to respect Islamic practice regarding burials, I say: baloney! When Brennan was asked if an Imam was present at the burial and whether it was videotaped, HE COMPLETELY DODGED THOSE TWO QUESTIONS, and in the case of the Imam question he reiterated that they adhered to Islamic practice How nice, we should take him at his word. But it’s true too that they couldn’t wait to get rid of the body and that reply just provided the perfect cover. This supposed attention to Islamic ritual sounds almost ridiculous after the thousands of innocent Muslims they’re killing in the wars. How can they believe that Muslims don’t see through this contradiction and hypocrisy?

    And yes the Administration keeps changing its stories, first it was leaked by an official that OBL’s wife was used as a human shield, then Brennan stated she willingly protected him, but asked again to clarify, Brennan walked his previous statement back stating that she was already standing in front of OBL trying to shield him and pleading not to kill him, and they can’t really say if she was or wasn’t a shield…say whaaat?

    And it’s true that the story first put out was that OBL resisted or there was some kind of resistance, and they also assured that the Pakistanis were involved and helpful, but now apparently OBL did not resist and the Pakistanis were not informed of this operation and are not pleased about this breach of their sovereignty.

    I remain very skeptical. Does anyone know how OBL actually coordinated 9/11? Did they find incriminating documentation, maps, photos, letters, email? Should we be satisfied with OBL’s death and just suppress our unanswered questions merely because they got the big prize? There are too many shifting versions of the incident, question marks regarding the planning of 9/11, and I have a hard time equating savage violence and barbaric behavior i.e. revenge with justice of any kind. I’m also reminded of Bradley Manning and the injustice being exacted on him in an effort to suppress truth. Should justice be denied and truth sacrificed in the name of “security” and revenge? Somehow Obama has stooped to the same level of the Bush Administration in an effort to satisfy the blood lust of the right and the need for revenge, and make himself appear tough on security. I agree with some that this is all too politically timely and self-serving. I feel that justice is a very serious matter and unlike many jumping for joy; I feel like I’m being dragged by a mob and forced to watch and cheer as the guillotine comes crashing down on someone’s neck. Excuse me, but aren’t we suppose to be better than this if we really want to eradicate terrorism and achieve peace, or is that not the goal anymore? How many deaths and executions does it take to make us feel secure?

  8. I agree with Aharon Eviatar. I would also “have preferred to have had him arrested and turned over to the ICC in the Hague for trial for crimes against humanity”.

    As things stand now, they’ve left enough room for doubt about the whole affair. Many in the Islamic world would not believe the US and would probably make a martyr and an object of worship out of Osama bin Laden and a devil out of Barack Obama.

    On the other hand, from what I heard from the BBC World Service, most people in Afghanistan are relieved that he’s dead, as his presence in the region has brought so much misery and death to them.

  9. Yes Shaun to say nothing of the genocide command re Amalek. True, the Sanhedrin was chary of death sentences and Ramban says that is better to let murderers walk free than hang an innocent man, but the assassination of Rabin was ordered by Rabbis on the basis of Din Rodef.
    Christianity and Islam are no better–killing the Other is part of any religion that claims exclusive ownership of the Truth..

    1. agree totally, killing is part of any religion, so how can Richard claim that “Jewish tradition…does not allow the murder of someone in cold blood…”

        1. Shai, I guess it depends on how literally one interprets the scripture and which commands one considers as more important or relevant to a situation at hand. That’s what all theological studies and disputes are about. The critical theory tells us of the progressiveness (meaning changing in time) of religious thought and writing. If you consider that the Hebrew Bible (the Torah) has been written down in the course of hundreds of years in very different times, by very different people, and that it was compiled into its present form by a council of sages, who had to choose what to include and what not, which in itself is a work of authorship, it is fairly easy to conclude that the various parts of the Torah reflect the different conditions and attitudes among the Jewish people throughout its history. As Erich Fromm put it in his brilliant book “Ye Shall Be As Gods: the Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament”: “The God of Abraham and the God of Isaiah share the essential qualities of the One, yet they are as different from each other as are an uneducated, primitive, nomadic tribal chief and a universalistic thinker living in one of the centers of world culture a millennium later.”

      1. Do you undetstand what “cold blood” means? It means you cannot kill someone unarmed esp when there may be non lethal means of apprehension & bringing to justice.

        Of course there is much blood in Jewish sacred texts & I have noted & critiqued this here before.

        But Jewish tradition does not see Islam or an individual Muslim as Amalek unless the Jew is a far right settler rabbi or a Daniel Pipes type.

        Of course ther

    2. When I came to Palestine I was still a believer in the concept of a just war. I also believed that it would be right for me to kill somebody in self-defence, if they posed a serious risk to my own life.

      Not any more. My views gradually deepened into pure pacifism due to my work in a Christian organisation that believes total non-violence to be essential to Christianity. We have Muslim members, and we are twinned with an Islamic pacifist organisation working in Hebron. Faith can be a powerful force for good.

      I defy anybody to meet my boss and retain the belief that religion is harmful. Her uncle died yesterday of a serious illness that could have been treated better if only the Israeli authorities had given him the permit he needed to get to a half-decent hospital. We were discussing forgiveness and its place in the Christian worldview, and as she often does, she suggested that we pray. Drawing our attention to Paul’s teaching to ‘always be thankful’, her first prayer was a thank-you that some Israelis visited us last week. A close relative suffers needlessly because of this occupation, her dad loses his much-loved brother, she herself is overworked and stressed by many things, and her instinct – born of her faith – is not to be angry with the Israelis who contributed to her uncle’s pain, but to be grateful for the ones who came and listened. For her, religion is not about killing the other; it is about meeting the other and recognising yourself.

      Whether you like it or not, there are deeply religious people on all sides of this conflict, and they aren’t going to go away. Trying to pretend that things would all be OK without religion is false: atrocities have been committed by secular Zionists (David Ben-Gurion, anyone? Golda Meir?) and secular Palestinians have been involved in terror (most notably George Habash). You also shouldn’t try to define people’s religious beliefs for them. People will not want to listen to you at all if you mischaracterise something that is so important to them.

  10. “If Bin Laden resisted violently I would have no problem with his killing.”

    Please be more consistent.

    When an armed gang of unidentified foreign thugs breaks into your home, where you live with your wives and children, you had better resist and defend them. This does not permit anyone to kill you.

    The only moral way to deal with Mr. Bin-Laden was to pass the information to local law authorities, and ask them to lawfully arrest him for questioning. I doubt there is any credible evidence (i.e. obtained without torture) that he is personally responsible for loss of life.

  11. Sure they did.
    My guess is the following logic:
    Had they taken him alive, American throughout the world would have become prime targets for kidnapping.
    To avoid that future kidnapping and many dead in the process of those actions, and to save the kidnapped, killing him was the best action.

    1. Freeman, I understand your logic. On the other hand, how many Americans have been kidnapped to be exchanged for the Guantanamo detainees? I personally have never heard of such cases. Of course, Bin Laden was not just a simple Muslim-extremist suspect. On the other hand, the US have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possible resistance and retaliation did not seem to deter them.

  12. Its possible that he died by his own hand. He swore over decades never to be taken alive, which is why I was suspicious of the original claim that he was hiding behind a “human shield”. A secure panic room would only delay the inevitable.

  13. There was no ‘burial’ at sea.
    They just dumped his body in the sea so that he would have no ‘holy’ place, grave in order to revoke the possibilities of his believers, followers or whatever to pray on his grave. After all, he is an icon.
    At least that’s what I’ve heard.

  14. The Emperor’s own words for the whitehouse transcript of his speech:

    “Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.”


    After a firefight, he was killed, at Obama’s direction.


    “The authorities we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then– they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed,” CIA director Leon Panetta told NBC News.


  15. Richard Silverstein says:
    May 3, 2011 at 10:24 PM
    he deserved to die.
    Sorry, but Jewish tradition which, if you’re a Chabadnik & claim to revere, does not allow the murder of someone in cold blood when it might be possible to capture them & bring them to justice.

    Adam Neira is not a Chabadnik it would be clear to you if you would read more of his posts. But that is besides the point.

    From the words of the Rebbe to Mr. Zvi Caspi, originally recorded in the Kfar Chabad magazine vol. 635

    You are mistaken with your policy of capturing terrorists and putting them into prison. These terrorists are coming to murder. We have a ruling; “One who comes to kill you, take pre-emptive action – kill him!”Then the Rebbe added his vision:
    You will pay dearly by putting them into prison, because in the future you will be beset with assorted demands to strike a ‘deal’ to free them as part of an exchange agreement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link