2011 18
Why say that Osama was unarmed?
Published by MartinVarsavsky.net in Micro with No Comments
I don’t understand why the Obama administration had to say that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed, that he was not threatening the life of the soldiers who were in the compound. Why feed the terrorists with stories that they can use for recruitment purposes? Why not just say that he died in the operation without giving more details than that?
Terrorism is an industry and its main input is angry young men. USA has to realize that certain moves, like Abu Gharb publicized pictures, Guantanamo tortures, air bombings in Fallujah, killing of thousands of innocent civilians in the search terrorists in Afghanistan, and now saying that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed, all these are the stories that feed the terrorists at their key moment, recruitment.
If the purpose is to disengage with terrorism USA should not make it easier for terrorist recruiters to get new people who hate USA. Al Qaeda’s life used to be much harder when all they had to say was “The infidels are in the holy land so let’s go and murder thousands of them when they go to work”. Let’s fight them without giving them arguments to multiply and grow. USA should study the many terrorist movements in Latin America and Europe that ended up completely extinguished. It was not revenge that did it. It was careful management of public opinion combined with effective police and judicial efforts. While my preference would have been to put Osama Bin Laden on trial I can also agree with those who said that capturing him would have made terrorists do all sorts of hijackings and threats to public safety. But if that is what drove the administration to decide to kill him, then why decrease public safety by confessing that he was murdered and making terrorists even more angry?.
Follow Martin Varsavsky on Twitter: twitter.com/martinvars
Related Posts
Tired of the Politics in Your Country? Quit Complaining and Do Something!
Religion and Politics must not go hand in hand
The trial that Bin Laden did not get, Breivik will get, and we should be concerned
“Spanish Revolution” of 2011 explained
Why majority of Muslims believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy created by the US Government
No Comments
MateoEstrada on May 18, 2011 ·
.
I have been defending the operation in public, once and again, even on legal grounds.
At the same time, I have felt embarrased by the ongoing series of (contradictory) brainless statements or leaks from high-ranking spin doctors and official pundits. Include the porn blame.
robin on May 18, 2011 ·
No. No. No. All good stuff, but on the wrong track.
What do they say about those guys who have the three cups and you choose which one the coin is under? Don’t choose the one that you think it’s under, because you’ll be wrong. This was 99% about US domestic political strategy, and for US media consumption. Nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: prevention of, protection against, or connection to.
@ Miguel Marcos: sorry, nice try, but no cigar. This event has been managed very very carefully. As interest wanes, more information is revealed. Earlier positions are reversed, or corrected (preferably with some angle which leaves questions unanswered or raises further issues).
No such thing as a secret in Pakistan (the only secrets are those that keep themselves).
See Adam Curtis in the Guardian, Robert Fisk in the Independent, and Tariq Ali (google) for more.
robin on May 18, 2011 ·
MateoEstrada wrote:
I have been defending the operation in public, once and again, even on legal grounds.
The “operation”? The one where the Americans shot three unarmed men and an unarmed woman, and then crashed and blew up a helicopter in violation of another country’s sovereignty, against international law, and with very, very dubious moral basis?
Hello? Which parallel universe are you calling from today Mateo?
As somebody pointed out recently, if events had been reversed, and somebody from the middle east had done something similar in the US – for example, assassinating Bush jnr/snr or similar, then the US population would have reacted somewhat differently.
Miguel Marcos on May 18, 2011 ·
> This event has been managed very very carefully.
Oh, yeah, micro-managed even:
– Woman had been used as a human shield > Woman killed in cross-fire
– UBL resisted apprehension and used a woman to shield himself during the assault > UBL didn’t cower behind a woman
– Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces > UBL was wasn’t armed
– bin Laden joined in the fight that several residents of the Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound put up against the Navy SEALs >
– One of bin Laden’s wives was killed > Not killed, shot in the leg
– Photo will be released > No photo will be released
The miscommunication was staged.
See The Guardian for some of these detals (yep, the paper Fisk, a truly awesome journalist for the most part, writes for)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change
robin on May 18, 2011 ·
Miguel feverishly tapped out:
See The Guardian for some of these detals (yep, the paper Fisk, a truly awesome journalist for the most part, writes for)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change
Hmmm. Fisk writes for The Independent. He is based in Beruit, and has been The Independent’s correspondent there for many years. Yes, he is an excellent journalist/commentator.
Carles Mateu on May 18, 2011 ·
Maybe they said that just because it was true? If we are to fight terrorism we should distance from them, we must be: HONEST, democrats and tolerant.
Miguel Marcos on May 18, 2011 ·
My bad: Fisk does write for The Independent. Apologies.
That point aside, I stand by the rest of my comment.
Elliott on May 19, 2011 ·
I don’t look to Jimmy Kimmel for political analysis, but he said it best a couple of weeks ago: “It was a kill mission. They killed him. End of story.” Succinct and correct. No need for a trial. It was a military operation against a self-confessed terrorist who publicly took responsibility for 9/11 and for seeking to continue terrorist activities against innocent civilians.
robin on May 19, 2011 ·
Elliott wrote:
I don’t look to Jimmy Kimmel for political analysis, but he said it best a couple of weeks ago: “It was a kill mission. They killed him. End of story.” Succinct and correct. No need for a trial. It was a military operation against a self-confessed terrorist who publicly took responsibility for 9/11 and for seeking to continue terrorist activities against innocent civilians.
You have no verifiable facts. All you have is a bunch of conflicting accounts from an administrations and culture that has a history of lying, torture, murder and incompetence. Not a good start. And you bought it, as they say, hook, line and sinker.
If you, Kimmel (?), or anyone else think that Bin Laden’s supposed assassination (an illegal and immoral act, by any legal yardstick) had anything to do with 9/11 (where a pitifully small number of people died – no disrespect to them but it was a few thousand), then you are sadly (willingly?) deluded.
“Kill mission”. It sounds to me like you’re playing computer games. The familiarity with which Americans speak of such things belies the underlying love of violence and vengeance: cornerstones of American life and culture.
Datamind on May 23, 2011 ·
The best way not to help al qaeda recruiters is probably not to murder Bin Laden cold blod. Lying about it just risk some wikileaks to spread the truth once again and add a lie to a crime.
Probably the reason to tell the truth, in this particular case from guys who usually don’t, is showing to the world the Impunity of theyre behaviour.
“Many terrorist movements in Latin America that ended up by careful management of public opinion combined with effective police and judicial efforts”? Are you talking about military goverments? Did I miss something?
robin on May 23, 2011 ·
Datamind wrote
The best way not to help al qaeda recruiters is probably not to murder Bin Laden
Agreed.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Miguel Marcos on May 18, 2011 ·
It’s a function of *who* says it, not so much what is said. In this case the US government jumped the gun to say he was unarmed preempting Al-Qaeda and other radical islamists from saying it first and to their accusatory advantage; the latter might have resulted in the US government having to reply to this accusation, etc., etc.
This particular characteristic of the whole episode seems to have died down, exactly what the US government wanted.