"Bin Laden is the Mitt Romney of terrorists. He can't figure out if he planned the thing or he didn't."

I doubt he can figure anything out considering the last thing to go through his head was a bullet.

Thanks for the news update.

Well, you post seemed to imply he might still be alive. It wasn't exactly clear. I mean the use of can't (present tense) in reference to a dead person thinking seemed kind of odd. So the implication was that you have a theory of him being alive.

You're right. Incorrect grammar. Should have used past tense.

OK. Thanks for that. And I agree, by the way. Bin Laden was a glory hound until he realized being public enemy number one for one of the most powerful military forces on the planet might not be such a good thing.

The myth is bigger than the man usually. I always think the best lies are built on the truth (particularily when playing diplomacy...) so the myth i'm talking about is how big and scary this 'evil' man was. As opposed to claimed he never incited violence.

At least others here seem to get it. Seems likely that every hero you meet in real-life will be a dissapointment, and that every villian will likewise not live up to their infamy.

Of course you can't meet him, there was no trial for this villian, there was no trust of Pakistani jurisdiction; this villian was too important to risk, not because he attacked america, but because America made him into a character. (and yes, he played his part in making that character useful to his cause)

Or because he killed several thousand people in one day. Unfortunately that's just another shoplifting crime in your thick skull.

The point, Santa, si that there is some doubt to the veractiy of that being a fact. The money trail ends to soon to confirm it for certain and he was a glory hound, wnating his vestal virgins and all that shit, so he might well have taken credit for something he wa sonly peripherally involved in, if at all. I.e. he may have just been the front man for the real ne'erdowells.

No, the point that Ora is making in his whimsical and flippant fashion, is that there is no truth, there are no facts and every story is equally valid. It's post-modernist bull shit run amok. Never mind that somebody killed masses of innocent civilians, what some jihadi claims about Bin Laden in Pakistan, that he gave out free food, he built infrastructure, and he'll he was a really nice guy, means that a man who killed innocent civilians by design wasn't a villain! No! How could a villain give free good to the masses! Obviously he is only a villain from what our media (who reported that bin laden was seen as a philanthropist in the Arab world, but no matter) wanted to portray him as. We have to find a way to bridge the villain story (after all it is truly extreme to call a purposeful mass murderer of civilians a villain) with the other extreme (a saint). So in the end bin laden is really just like me and you and all the stories otherwise are just propaganda.

God forbid we draw a red line and say that a guy who intentionally killed masses of people is unwaveringly a villain for that action alone, despite all his chartitable endeavors.

Only an idiot thinks that a person is completely one sided friend or for. Only an idiot thinks that an existence of other sides of a person precludes objective analysis of his actions . Ora is that second idiot.

Look, orathaic never claimed that Bin Laden was innocent, that he never caused death or suffering. He seems to think that Bin Laden was not nearly as involved, was not exactly the only cause of the suffering and death. This was just a fun thought exercise to see how others view the situation. By the way, excepting nutjobs, everyone thinks 9/11 was bad, everyone thinks Bin Laden deserved punishment. They just have differing opinions about how vital the punishment was.

@phil, thanks, it is draug who is bringing up the possible innocence.

That question however was never addressed as there was no trial, and we're not going to solve it here by any measure. So i could fairly claim that justice was not done. At least by our western standards.

But you are entirely right, i never said he was innocent. I started talking about narrative, and the difference between the european and american 'truth'. @Santa "God forbid we draw a red line and say that a guy who intentionally killed masses of people is unwaveringly a villain for that action alone" - if you hold that hold that moral standard then it is only fair to ask how many People have been killed on the orders of US presidents since 9/11. Intentionally, in war, and by the same standard you do not vilify Obama and Bush? How come? (and i admit i say, 'on the orders', i'm assuming These presidents have advisors who make the actual plans for war and then presidets choose to order these plans, they don't have to mastermind the whole thing, they don't personally approve of every innocent death... This gives a lot of room for Osama to have 'ordered' the attacks on American soil)

And to be fair, there are many peace advocates in the US who take this view. But Osama gets shot in the head and Obama gets a peace prize.

Could have been the other way around...

Ok, ill answer your original question.

"Is there an alternative narrative where Osama was a war hero and his assassination a terrible crime which must be punished? (hence the complete lack of evidence coming out of the CIA about what happened, no body, no trial&execution, no photos spread across the net - they don't want pictures to be used as propaganda which will help radicalise a new generation) "

No

@phil, thanks, it is draug who is bringing up the possible innocence.

That question however was never addressed as there was no trial, and we're not going to solve it here by any measure. So i could fairly claim that justice was not done. At least by our western standards.

But you are entirely right, i never said he was innocent. I started talking about narrative, and the difference between the european and american 'truth'. @Santa "God forbid we draw a red line and say that a guy who intentionally killed masses of people is unwaveringly a villain for that action alone" - if you hold that hold that moral standard then it is only fair to ask how many People have been killed on the orders of US presidents since 9/11. Intentionally, in war, and by the same standard you do not vilify Obama and Bush? How come? (and i admit i say, 'on the orders', i'm assuming These presidents have advisors who make the actual plans for war and then presidets choose to order these plans, they don't have to mastermind the whole thing, they don't personally approve of every innocent death... This gives a lot of room for Osama to have 'ordered' the attacks on American soil)

And to be fair, there are many peace advocates in the US who take this view. But Osama gets shot in the head and Obama gets a peace prize.

There is no heroes in wars. There is only criminals who are culpable and more culpable as they killed or caused death of more people. Not only Osama, but Bush and many other generals and presidents carry the blood of the innocent in their hands.

So my alternative narrative suggests that it is simply murderers killing other murderers and claiming that the world is much better now. There is no "morally more right" or "more innocent" here. It is just two wrongs yet this does not create a right or moral...

Double post? Usually webdip prevents that sort of thing, damn browser.

In my case violence is only acceptable in self-defence (or defence of others) so shooting down planes which are entering your airspace could be deemed an acceptable deterrent. Killing Bin Laden was not self-defence, killing Saddam Hussien was not self-defence.

@ora - No, I brought up a less culpable possibility. I never ever claimed he was possibly innocent, just that he may have taken more credit than was his due. No matter what, it is pretty clear he provided funding for it all.

Ok, so nobod is saying he was innocent. Thanks for the clarification.

Anyone find it ironic that some dumb-ass complaining about war has a user name that is the name of an ancient King who has, as one of his claim's to fame, the war with Elam.

Dumb-ass...

Irrelevant side-track K-dog.

oh krellin you completely got me there, I just discredited myself completely by my username. (by the way is it completely allowable to use words like dum*-*ss in the forum?)

Anyway, isnt it the cheapest way to attack someone personally when you dont have any proper arguments against him? That is all I gonna say to you, oh and thanks for your trolling attempt.

Back to the subject:

When judged against each other, I personally find it worse to declare war and do operations that change the whole social life in a country, especially on forged and false evidences, compared to a single terrorist attack that killed 3 thousand. (100 - 150 thousand civilians died in the Iraq war between 2003 - 2011. ) In the end, second one has long term impact on every individual's life in that country.

Nevertheless, blaming one single person, like Bush or Laden in these examples is not completely right but that is another subject. Yet, they do have a serious responsibility as the authorities who could have stopped such atrocities. However, no one should think that it justifies their death on sight without a trial. I dont think killing Laden without a proper hearing contributes anything much in the world, especially peace. Now we are forced to assume that 9/11 was his responsibility. I wont start considering any of the conspiracy theories, but killing him right away like that does not prove anything and it actually -and perhaps intentionally- leaves a lot of question both about him and 9/11 unanswered.