My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”
Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.
There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.
There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.
Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”
There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.






Who was murdered?
By methven, william at May 21, 2011 09:31 AM
Bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi in receipt of long term mediacal treatment (we are told). So his medical records would be detailed. Why have these not been used to prove that the dead body was bin laden's and not some poor stooge lookalike - one of the many that have ben paraded on the world's media over the years?
The indecent haste that his body was disappeared without any medical examination is deeply suspicious.
I remain very sceptical that this was in fact the mythical bin laden & that he did not already die some years ago, and the myth has been kept alive in the West until it suited the Americans to kill him off & claim his scalp.
Reply this comment
Assasination, Terrory, War and Peace
By Johnson, Dale at May 20, 2011 15:43 PM
See http://www,zcoommunications.org/zspace/DaleJohnson
Reply this comment
Re: Assasination, Terror, War and Peace
By Johnson, Dale at May 20, 2011 15:50 PM
http://zcommunications.org/zspace/DaleJohnson
Reply this comment
Astute Article
By patterson, george at May 19, 2011 23:09 PM
Reply this comment
Re: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
By Weber, Mark at May 08, 2011 01:54 AM
Reply this comment
The State's Ally
By P, Noel at May 07, 2011 19:18 PM
In removing bin Laden, the State has removed a key ally in its use of torture, reduction of civil liberties, postponement of lawless prisons like Gitmo, and continuation of the war on Afghanistan. What new excuses will they perpetuate to continue these policies? We need to work to stop them as bin Laden's death offers us ammunition.
Reply this comment
Re: The State's Ally
By Andrews, John at May 07, 2011 21:11 PM
Methinks the US and Europe will easily find a new monster - Ho Chi Mihn morphed into Fidel Castro who morphed into Salvadore Allende and then Daniel Ortega and then Sadaam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il and then Hugo Chavez. I suspect someone Chinese might fill the vacant picture frame.
I hope I'm wrong.
Best wishes
John Andrews
Reply this comment
Re: Re: The State's Ally
By Dorsey, Michael at May 09, 2011 01:41 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Re: The State's Ally
By Khan, Nasir at May 09, 2011 20:38 PM
I don't think you are wrong or you will proven to be wrong. I think, what you and Noel say is exactly the shape of the things to come. Chomsky does not mince his words; he is always clear about what he says and what he stands for.
Reply this comment
Re: The State's Ally
By Jamal, Samir at May 08, 2011 09:15 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Re: The State's Ally
By P, Noel at May 10, 2011 02:53 AM
I believe Chomsky expressed after 9/11 that every power system in the world would use the pretext for 9/11 to usurp greater power (e.g. U.S, Russia, China, India, etc) and therefore, bin Laden was a gift to the State and his persona was used by the US as the bogeyman to get a lot of distasteful policies down the throats of the American People. Unfortunately, in the true sense he is not an ally because there are many in the Mulsim world that see through the American acts of aggression and although do not agree with bin Laden still understand the distaste with American policy. What excuses the American government uses next and far they get away with it, as Chomsky says, are things that we can have an impact on. Thanks for writing.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: The State's Ally
By P, Noel at May 11, 2011 23:09 PM
I believe Chomsky expressed after 9/11 that every power system in the world would use the pretext for 9/11 to usurp greater power (e.g. U.S, Russia, China, India, etc) and therefore, bin Laden was a gift to the State and his persona was used by the US as the bogeyman to get a lot of distasteful policies down the throats of the American People. In the true sense he is not an ally and there are many in the Mulsim world that see through the American acts of aggression and although do not agree with bin Laden's methods still understand the distaste with American policy. What excuses the American government uses next and far they get away with it, as Chomsky says, are things that we can have an impact on. Thanks for writing.
Reply this comment
no ifs no buts
By Karman, Leen at May 07, 2011 19:00 PM
Thank you, Chomsky
Reply this comment
I Am
By Bluhm, Richard at May 07, 2011 13:57 PM
Incidentally, it was 9/11 that awakened me, a former high school history teacher, to the malevolent motives of the powers that be. I recall initialing my quest for truth by doing an internet search of "Noam Chomsky." Chomsky's analysis has not disappointed me since though I depart from his unwillingness to give the devil his due regarding 9/11. Sorry, it started us on this latest road to perdition and has infected the last decade with a collective insanity the scale of which has no comparison in history. The denial of physical evidence on the part of the intelligentsia whom Chomsky recently related as being overwhelmingly supportive of power is par of the course. Face it. Few aspects of 9/11 can stand the light of day most emphatically a trial of bin Laden which most probably would have brought out the myriad inconsistencies brought forth by the work of Richard Gage. See ae9/11truth.org.
Recognize that we are all swiss cheese as far as the talents that birth has given us, including the most prescient Noam Chomsky. He is only human. He has chosen to ignore or simply cannot see the most awkward implications of the crime of the century perhaps because he's aware that Big Brother is just too powerful, or perhaps it's too much of a distraction from the Constitutional crisis at hand. Realizing that the above statement elicits impatience from those who have put such thoughts behind them I'm fully aware that what is wrong with the world is "I Am."
Reply this comment
Re: I Am
By McNamara, Niall at May 07, 2011 16:28 PM
Terrorism is an evil but attributing the crime to the criminal is fundemental to any legal process that claims a modicum of legal or process. Bin Laden should have been arrested as was possible and tried. then the US or better still the ICC could provide the world with the evidence of the origins of the 9/11 mass crime. It is believed that mass crimes have been committed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan but Americans consider such murder as not worthy of consideration. Such inconsistancies attest to the bias of US and other western media. What NC has written is correct and the anamolous statements after the recent raid by the US administration illustrates the conflicting statements on matters since the first minute of the 9/11 attack.
Reply this comment
Re: I Am
By Lewis, Alexander at May 09, 2011 18:04 PM
my question for you and 911 conspiracy theorists. first off, you don't deny that two planes struck the towers.. correct? but in addition, explosives were also added. if i have that correct then i must ask what purpose do these explosives serve? if, as claimed, the towers couldn't have fallen in the manner they did, would not the planes have been sufficient all the same? perhaps only killing half as many people, it still provides grounds for a "shock doctrine" reaction. why risk the whole plot with added planning just to get a bigger boom? where's the logic here?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: I Am
By Weber, Mark at May 10, 2011 05:35 AM
Reply this comment
Re: I Am
By Garrigues, Chris at May 11, 2011 15:26 PM
Your preferred scenario plays out: whoever desired finally vindicates your facts; a critical mass accepts that one particularly horrible and tragic event that has had an immense impact on the world was an 'inside job'; the guilty parties are thrown out. People around the world sleep a little sounder as they all know that those nefarious neocon rascals are gone. What next? Sexism, racism, capitalism, nationalism and ecological devastation carry on.
Reply this comment