crocty
Well, a war crime trial, yes, I don't know how they work, but I think it's basically like a normal trial, pleads, blah blah, of course he'd be found guilty, but doesn't America generally hold that "everyone gets a trial" thing pretty high?

I mean even Hussein got a trial.
...I think? I assume he did. They didn't kill him on sight.

So I'm just wondering why Osama didn't get a trial, really.

It's not that it bothers me, it can be justified, even if it was technically wrong. It's just the people who say it wasn't wrong at all.

Saddam never admitted to WMD's, we never found them. The iraqi people put saddam on trial.

seventy2
Saddam never admitted to WMD's, we never found them. The iraqi people put saddam on trial.

Oh, I didn't really follow any news back then. Or right now.

I guess that sort of changes things, I know now why they didn't just kill Saddam as soon as possible.
...They didn't get the chance. Hm. :/

crocty

ayesinback

someone
If he was captured and put on trial, THEN murdered, that'd be fine.

Why? What exactly do we think the purpose of a trial is?

Determine guilt? Allow the "accused" to defend himself? Let the families of the victims look at the criminal for "closure"?

Bravo put it best. Bin Laden made of himself a war criminal, and he died during an act of war.

Well, a war crime trial, yes, I don't know how they work, but I think it's basically like a normal trial, pleads, blah blah, of course he'd be found guilty, but doesn't America generally hold that "everyone gets a trial" thing pretty high?

I mean even Hussein got a trial.
...I think? I assume he did. They didn't kill him on sight.

So I'm just wondering why Osama didn't get a trial, really.

It's not that it bothers me, it can be justified, even if it was technically wrong. It's just the people who say it wasn't wrong at all.

Why didn't he get a trial? I'm pretty sure Obama suspected he had some crazy escape plan involving a monkey dressed like a scientist, two grapefruits, a single stick of dynamite and a hot air balloon. Better take care of the problem at first sight.

In all seriousness, I think Hussein got a trial because he was a war criminal and not logistically considered a shatterpoint to the armed conflict. Bin Ladin is like a version of the Muslim pope (please don't kill me if that analogy is off), and you can't hold something that volatile, you just get rid of it. Civilly, it's a reprehensible thing, but logistically, it makes more sense to deal with the problem now and let civilians argue about it later.

In response to the last few posts:

Saddam was captured by US soldiers. He was given to the new Iraqi government who tried him for crimes against humanity (not possession of chemical weapons (although he was charged for using them in the past)).

Many countries aside US still use the death penalty but it's severely frowned upon by most westernized nations. For example, the EU does not allow a member states to practice the death penalty and a country applying for membership would have to abolish it.

And I'm sorry but calling that attack an act of war is a stretch. A war is a definition for a national conflict (civil war) or conflict between nations. Those soldiers were operating in a country that they had permission to enter, they did not engage representatives of that country and struck a single building, that was harboring criminals. You can argue whether or not Pakistan secretly helped hide Bin Laden but they at least did not resist the attack on his compound. Thus, no act of war has been committed.

There's also no need to call Osama a war criminal. The whole idea behind the definition of war crimes is the ability to prosecute national leaders, soldiers or anyone else who can be held responsible for the actions of a country, for crimes they've committed under the cover of war. Before the Geneva convention, I could have, as a soldier, raided entire villages and shot every single soul living there, as long as my country was at war with them and gotten away with it scot free. It was just accepted as unavoidable consequences of war and everything I did was considered fine and dandy by my country. Hell, I'd probably be considered to be a hero there. The definition of war crimes is to give those who were wronged by my actions the means to bring me to justice via international channels. Osama was not a war criminal cause he did not represent a nation that you were at war with. He wasn't acting under the cover of war, thus not shielded by a country that he was working for at the time, so any crimes that he committed were just that, a crime. Pretty serious crimes, granted, but they were not war crimes.

Besides... even war criminals have right of trial, according to international laws.

Hakoshen
Bin Ladin is like a version of the Muslim pope (please don't kill me if that analogy is off), and you can't hold something that volatile, you just get rid of it.

Yeeeeeah, that analogy... Here's another: That's like saying the leader of the Westbro Baptists is like the Dali Lama, or Charles Manson is like the leader of the UN. :)
A loooony loooooooooooooooooooooonnnng way off.

But the "shatterpoint" thing is accurate in a ot of ways.- not for Muslim people of course, but for the different terrorist groups and sympathisers yes.

Product Placement
In response to the last few posts:

Yup, all pretty correct PP.
All the "act of war", "war crimes" stuff etc is just hairy chested blather. This was an assassination by a kill team. The sort of thing the US has done in the past, but not been very open about.

I continue to say it's a good thing that he is dead and done away with quickly, for the sake of ending any further influence. Getting rid of him is like taking the queen in chess (albeit one that'd been blocked for a long time).

Anyway, yeah, the justifications and celebrations are in bad taste, but you REALLY have to consider that it's mostly Americans who're doing that stuff and they have a much more intimate, personal, nationalistic connection with this, so you have to give them a lotta leeway. ;)

It's those who behave that way who don't come from the US who deserve a harsher look.

From the standpoint that two wrongs don't make a right, I agree with most of what's been written by those who believe that bin Laden should have been treated just like anybody else.

I also agree that it's illogical to have a war against a concept. Wars, by traditional definition, are nation against nation.

But the crimes of this individual, I believe, are historically unique (altho I am reading the Saga of Egil, so perhaps I should specify unique for present day). He spearheaded a voracious attack on a way-of-life. He recruited and trained supporters for years. Beyond the death toll of 9-11, he was dramatically successful in his aims. The "freedom" enjoyed by American 10 years ago is forever gone and has been replaced with something between paranoia and Mother-may-I safeguards to borderline fascist control. Every time we take our shoes off at the airport we can remember bin Laden.



Bin Laden was unique in his planning, in his scope, and in his individual contribution to devastation, and in his pride of it. Does ANYBODY for one second think there was an iota possibility of rehabilitation for this monster?

But I'm reading about how he can't be considered a nation. so there wasn't a war. so there are no war crimes. so he shouldn't have been hunted down and killed. he should have received a trial like any other - - - WTF! how in the world does anyone see him like "any other" ??!!?

This reminds me of the British armies complaints about the American colonists who didn't fight with the expected and accepted rules of engagement for that time during the American Revolution. We were guerrilla fighters, we didn't fight fair.

We don't fight to be fair. We fight because someone's fucking with us and we don't like it. We fight to win, not to be popular.

No, it's not nice. It IS an evil. But it shouldn't be a surprise. We dropped two atomics on Japan. It was ungodly. It is ungodly.

Am I proud of this? Hell, no. But I'm not going to pretend that I think it's better to extend an engagement and "fight fair" so that more loss can be borne, just so we can curry world opinion.

I never wanted this war and I've been wanting a conclusion to this war. Please don't tell me it's not a war just because we're not fighting a nation. When there are 100,000s of deaths and trillions of $ spent, it's a friggin war.

Shortening the ordeal of bin Laden will hopefully shorten this war. or whatever term you'd like to give it.

technically we are fighting a government. Think of it this way. You live in chicago. Chicago has a mayor, a city council, and a police force. The mayor and the council determine laws, and the police force enforces those laws.

But then you have the mob. The mob has a don, and a close family, and a bunch of thugs. The Don makes up rules with the family, and the thugs enforce those rules. They go in where the mayor has authority, but the police can't reach (either thru lack of manning, or just logistics of force management) and take over. for all purposes, to these locals of chicago, the mob is law.

the same can be said in afghanistan. Al qaeda and other associated groups set up shops that are pretty legit (although not officially recognized by the world as anything more than "organizations"). So we're going in and trying to take down this set up, and set up the actual world recognized authority. So that makes it war by the others definition.

But i consider military engagement, with casualties, war.

seventy2
technically we are fighting a government.

Ah, I think there's some confusion here.
The concept "War on Terror" is a nonsense. It's just a political marketing phrase (propaganda) thought up by some clever spivs in the former Bush Administration.

There are actual wars though: The invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were two completely separate campaigns for very different reasons and justifications that were handily put under the idiotic collective banner of "war on terror" to help sell them. You could just as easily call them "Bush's big hungry small penis death war bonanza", but that wouldn't really gain much traction with the target demographic :)

ozoneocean

seventy2
technically we are fighting a government.

Ah, I think there's some confusion here.
The concept "War on Terror" is a nonsense. It's just a political marketing phrase (propaganda) thought up by some clever spivs in the former Bush Administration.

it's the new cold war.

Except with out all the exciting technological build ups. jerks. maybe we'll force the afghans to become so awesome, they out produce us, and we need to keep up, authorizing a mars race!

Oh, there have been wars. There were wars alright.

You went to war with Afghanistan because the leadership at the time; the Taliban, refused to hand over Bin Laden. You believed that the Taliban were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks and that they needed to face the consequences for those actions.
You then went to war with Iraq, on the grounds that he was stockpiling chemical weapons. While I found the Afghan war to be justifiable, I never supported the Iraq war because you went in there on false pretenses. There had been lengthy ongoing debates about whether or not Sadam was stockpiling these weapons. I remember it clear as day when I came to work, to find the TV on, showing pictures of the first air strikes in Baghdad and how I thought "They better find those weapons or all credibility in them is gone (thinking about Bush and Blair, at the time)".

Today, you're not dealing with a war. You're dealing with an occupation. More specifically, they're dealing with an occupation. The Afghan people have had to live under direct US involvement for 10 years now. Similarly, the Iraq occupation has been going on for 8 years. You can't honestly expect that you're not going to suffer extensive casualties under a decade long occupation in a country full of people who were taught to believe that you were the enemy. Imagine if you had been invaded by soviet Russia 20 years ago and that they'd won. You'd still probably be organizing resistance movements to this day.

Speaking of Russians, they once tried to control and occupy Afghanistan and suffered allot of casualties as a result. They were well on the way to take over the country when America, feeling threatened by increased Soviet global influence decided to do something about it. Since you didn't want to get directly involved, after the fiasco that was the Vietnam war, you opted to covertly fund and arm the resistance with modern weaponry to fight the Russians. The russians lost over 10.000 men before finally giving up on the occupation, which is when America decided to cut all support on Afghanistan as well. Charlie Wilson, who was a key player in the support of the afghan resistance, criticized the decision of pulling out early and not aid in the recovery of the country. As a result we ended up with a war torn country filled with well armed extremist militants and very little relief efforts to kick start education and security efforts. It is a breeding ground for disaster. The one we ended up with today.

Finally, Bin Lade was like "any other", that being that he was a human. It is important to recognize that. Failure to do so is a failure to understand that the ability to do evil acts is within all of us. Whether it is to herd entire ethnic groups into death camps, drop nukes on cities full of people or fly planes into buildings, they are acts we are capable of committing, given the right motivations. If we start to think that the men who do such acts are not like "us", we take a step towards becoming more like them; someone who believes they're better then others.

seventy2
it's the new cold war.

LOL
More like the new "war on drugs", or "War on Obesity", or "war on hipsters in stupid skinny girl jeans" ^___^

I sort of wish that last one was real. -_-

There are human beings, which we all are, and that's animal-based. And then there are humane beings, which we hope we all aspire to. Most of us go back and forth on the range from animal to saint, never really residing on one end. But then special cases come up.

I believe, and most courts agree, that each situation commends individual examination for the existence of extenuating circumstances, and that the same penalty should not apply equally each time a crime is committed. A person who kills for the pleasure of a kill is considered a murderer. A person who kills when trying to protect self or others is definitely a killer, but not a murderer. A person who steals bread from the motivation of starvation should not be judged with the same harshness as one who steals for sheer acquisition.

As much as structure and firm rules are desirable, black and white does not fit the actual events in a spectrum'd world. This is important to recognize, too.

And if one can agree that some situations merit mercy, how is it that one cannot see that some cases merit the gravest penalties?

my what a interesting DEBATE AND DISCUSSION you all have here. its like you're going back and forth with different ideals and ideas and agruing your points trying to get the other side to understand your point of view and perhaps agree with it.

this has been going on for a few pages now so i'm suggesting that you either move it or lose it because, really, i'm starting to see some angry faces and heated conversations here and you (ozone, product) should know where that goes.

and einar, you're on dangerous grounds. you should look for signs before stomping about in minefields



and more on topic... you can have a nation that is not always a country

a nation is a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language. they are people with simular traits that have come together. we are fighting a nation of people who have commited terrorist acts against us. we ask the world nations for its support and yet when push comes to shove we pretty much did most of it ourselves through force because there was no other compliance at least in certain governments. everyone knew the united states of america wanted osama bin ladens head on a plate for his crimes against us and the world. no one, said anything about how we wanted to kill him before so what did you all think would happen when we finally found him? that we'd book 'em and drag him thousands of miles away to face trial because he was innocent till proven guilty? we already proved him guilty! he already admitted to his guilt! if he had to face the people whose lives he damaged or destroyed he would have been torn apart on the streets- no army or police force could have stopped it because they would have felt the same way. as human as he was he was a monster who needed to be stopped. everytime he spoke, everytime he made one of those videos for his comrades he was armed and dangerous. not with guns but with ideas and those are like fire. we were just snuffing out fire with fire. its no reason to be proud. its no reason to celebrate. it was just a job that needed to get done as horrible a job as it was. its beyond regretable the steps that needed to be taken, the lives lost, the people and freedoms changed... but everyone knew that this is what the united states government was going to do. they were going to stop a man who started a conflict. or did no one think that far ahead?

i'm not saying that we can go around killing ideas, quite frankly thats impossible not to mention it can cross lines that should not be crossed but he was a declared enemy in a time of war who was also clearly criminal and can be considered downright evil. alls fair in love and war and he was fair game.

ozoneocean

Hakoshen
Bin Ladin is like a version of the Muslim pope (please don't kill me if that analogy is off), and you can't hold something that volatile, you just get rid of it.

Yeeeeeah, that analogy... Here's another: That's like saying the leader of the Westbro Baptists is like the Dali Lama, or Charles Manson is like the leader of the UN. :)
A loooony loooooooooooooooooooooonnnng way off.

What I meant to imply was that he's a religious leader of an organization bigger than a cult, with authority to declare fatwas and jihads. Likening him to the leader of an entire religious faith wasn't my intention.

As someone who isnt effected nor cares about the death of this man I can say that we've all had our say. Some agree with others and some have points that get disagreed with. I understand that this is a very serious topic and touches a nerve with some(most) people but you all seriously need to calm down. This kind of stuff tears communities apart. People, relationships, friendships. Lets drop this topic. The mans dead. Nothing can be done about it. No matter how people disagree with how he died we cant exactly dig up his corpse and put him on trial. Although for the amount of choice he had in the matter we might aswell. The world has become a savage place and life is a savage thing for most people in these times. It may or may not cause retaliation from his followers. At this point all we can do at this point is wait and see.

Everyone has different opinions. If you didnt want them criticised you shouldnt post them online.
And mettaur....

Shut up.

same
As someone who isnt effected nor cares about the death of this man I can say that we've all had our say. Some agree with others and some have points that get disagreed with. I understand that this is a very serious topic and touches a nerve with some(most) people but you all seriously need to calm down. This kind of stuff tears communities apart. People, relationships, friendships. Lets drop this topic. The mans dead. Nothing can be done about it. No matter how people disagree with how he died we cant exactly dig up his corpse and put him on trial. Although for the amount of choice he had in the matter we might aswell. The world has become a savage place and life is a savage thing for most people in these times. It may or may not cause retaliation from his followers. At this point all we can do at this point is wait and see.

Everyone has different opinions. If you didnt want them criticised you shouldnt post them online.
And mettaur....

Shut up.

Yeah. Lots of hurt feelings around here.

ozoneocean
"war on hipsters in stupid skinny girl jeans"

They bring out my thighs. OK!?

same
As someone who isnt effected nor cares about the death of this man I can say that we've all had our say. Some agree with others and some have points that get disagreed with. I understand that this is a very serious topic and touches a nerve with some(most) people but you all seriously need to calm down. This kind of stuff tears communities apart. People, relationships, friendships. Lets drop this topic. The mans dead. Nothing can be done about it. No matter how people disagree with how he died we cant exactly dig up his corpse and put him on trial. Although for the amount of choice he had in the matter we might aswell. The world has become a savage place and life is a savage thing for most people in these times. It may or may not cause retaliation from his followers. At this point all we can do at this point is wait and see.

Everyone has different opinions. If you didnt want them criticised you shouldnt post them online.
And mettaur....

Shut up.

same
This kind of stuff tears communities apart.

Haha seriously?

I doubt it...
No one would be THAT immature, surely?

I don't really care, it was just a debate. I think people are overreacting when they say it's an argument, really...

...Then again I haven't been paying too much attention.

Obviously I have strong feelings about this subject, and I apologize if anyone feels that I have personally attacked them. That was never my intent. For my part, I don't feel I've been attacked, only that my opinion has been disagreed with.

So Roku's right. If people want to continue this thread then it should be moved to the debate forum.

an aside: Our local paper ran this column today , which pertains to this thread. Again, it's an East Coast American's point of view, and I don't expect the world at large to agree or even understand.

I'm kinda on Crocty's side here. Never once did I get upset during this discussion and I merely voiced my opinion on the matter.

I still believe that storming the compound with the intent on killing him was not the right thing to do cause it's borderline the same idea as letting a mob storm a house of a serial killer, that you've just identified, instead of allowing the police to handle the matter.

We're people living in a world where borders mean less and less every day. Improved communication technology and transport means that you can chat with your friends in Nicaragua, while chomping on an orange from Chile, then proceed to play a game on your cell phone against an office worker in Hong Kong. Bin Laden represents a criminal that lives in this kind of a world; one that isn't limited by borders. To spend trillions of dollars (a trillion being one million, million) and invade two countries in the process, just to get one man is ludicrous. It's akin of destroying a city, because there's a gang living there.

What I'm saying is that Osama was a new kind of criminal. International one. Perhaps in the future we will look into the idea of creating an international force that doesn't represent a single country but the whole world. Anyone could join it and its jurisdiction is everywhere. It would then be up to them to handle cases like these, along with international crime rings, human slave trafficking, drug trade, anything that isn't contained within a single country. At least when I see things like the UN peace keeper force, I get a feeling we might see something like that.

And to say that you were alone in this is far from true. The invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO backed front, with over 20 non-NATO countries eventually joining it. You had problems convincing NATO members to invade Iraq because of severe doubts of them having anything to do with the terrorist attacks and the weapons of mass destruction claims weren't solid enough.

Product Placement
Never once did I get upset during this discussion and I merely voiced my opinion on the matter.

That ^
doesn't help anything, Product.

so, let chips fall as they may.

crocty

same
This kind of stuff tears communities apart.

Haha seriously?

I doubt it...
No one would be THAT immature, surely?

I don't really care, it was just a debate. I think people are overreacting when they say it's an argument, really...

...Then again I haven't been paying too much attention.

Thats my point. People over react.
People are immature.
Keyboard warriors.

ayesinback

Product Placement
Never once did I get upset during this discussion and I merely voiced my opinion on the matter.

That^
doesn't help anything, Product.

Ayes. I'm not trying to be disrespectful towards you. I was trying to convey that my previous posts were not some spiteful rants of mine or that I bore any ill will towards anyone.

Product Placement
I still believe that storming the compound with the intent on killing him was not the right thing to do cause it's borderline the same idea as letting a mob storm a house of a serial killer, that you've just identified, instead of allowing the police to handle the matter.

That's easy to say from an objectional standpoint.

Realistically speaking though, if someone were to break into a mother's home and murder her children, there is no way to rationalize such an act from the mother's point of view.

A lot of points brought up by people show me that perspective is everything.

same

crocty

same
This kind of stuff tears communities apart.

Haha seriously?

I doubt it...
No one would be THAT immature, surely?

I don't really care, it was just a debate. I think people are overreacting when they say it's an argument, really...

...Then again I haven't been paying too much attention.

Thats my point. People over react.
People are immature.
Keyboard warriors.

I appreciate that you wanted people to chill and not get to a point where they felt personally insulted. You also stated that you don't have strong feelings about this topic, but understood that some people did.

I am one of those people. The 9-11 attack was not simply a regrettable event in human history for me. I'm still friends with families who lost loved ones that day and who somehow haven't learned how to mature and get over it. There's more, but you've already stated you don't care, so we'll leave it at that.

I totally get that for those people who did not experience what I did, what my town and county did, and who want to discuss the orchestrator of that day, that they will not have the baggage that I do. To them, it's all academic.

And you raised a flag, which was good, to point out that we are all coming from different points, and maybe we should just accept that we feel as we do and others feel (or not feel at all) as they do. fine

And then you totally blew it by to referring to feelings such as mine as an over-reaction, as immature, as the antics of a keyboard warrior.

Again, I don't expect people to understand what my experience is with this and why I'm just glad that the asshole is dead. If I trounced on anyone, I am sorry. But I suggest that when you realize someone is impassioned about a subject, especially as one as volatile as this, minimizing someone else's perspective, and/or judging it, IS insulting.

The man was a vicious murderer, there's no denying that.

I wasn't trying to state that I have no sympathy towards those who lost their lives during the attacks but I feel that so many more lives have been needlessly squandered on both sides. For the past decade it's been a vicious cycle of terror strikes justifying western countries conducting warfare on middle eastern countries, while extremist justify terror strikes on the grounds that western countries are bossing around the middle east. While people are actively talking about dropping the subject, I feel it's more important to find ways to break this cycle.

One final note. I refrained from doing so myself, because neither general nor debates are my places to moderate and thus I didn't want to step on other moderator toes but the need to move this thing has long passed the due date.

I'm taking this to the debate section.

ayesinback

same

crocty

same
This kind of stuff tears communities apart.

Haha seriously?

I doubt it...
No one would be THAT immature, surely?

I don't really care, it was just a debate. I think people are overreacting when they say it's an argument, really...

...Then again I haven't been paying too much attention.

Thats my point. People over react.
People are immature.
Keyboard warriors.

I appreciate that you wanted people to chill and not get to a point where they felt personally insulted. You also stated that you don't have strong feelings about this topic, but understood that some people did.

I am one of those people. The 9-11 attack was not simply a regrettable event in human history for me. I'm still friends with families who lost loved ones that day and who somehow haven't learned how to mature and get over it. There's more, but you've already stated you don't care, so we'll leave it at that.

I totally get that for those people who did not experience what I did, what my town and county did, and who want to discuss the orchestrator of that day, that they will not have the baggage that I do. To them, it's all academic.

And you raised a flag, which was good, to point out that we are all coming from different points, and maybe we should just accept that we feel as we do and others feel (or not feel at all) as they do. fine

And then you totally blew it by to referring to feelings such as mine as an over-reaction, as immature, as the antics of a keyboard warrior.

Again, I don't expect people to understand what my experience is with this and why I'm just glad that the asshole is dead. If I trounced on anyone, I am sorry. But I suggest that when you realize someone is impassioned about a subject, especially as one as volatile as this, minimizing someone else's perspective, and/or judging it, IS insulting.

Im sorry you feel offended. I wasnt talking about you. I was talking about people on the internet. Nothing about this thread. When I said keyboard warriors I wasnt referring to anyone here. Im just saying that its easy for people to hide behind an online persona and tell people that they disagree with what people are saying. Im not talking about people defending their own points here. Im talking about people who are immature and let things like this cause them to hate others with a passion. I'm sorry that I dont care about his death but I do however care about the suffering hes caused. People over here have died because of it. I was 9 when I heard about what happened. I was afraid that something like that would happen here for a couple of years. I believed the worst. I thought the world was going to end for some stupid childish reason. I learned that when I grew up that this was all stupid and there was no reason to live in fear of what might happen. I was indirectly effected mentally but nothing effected me anywhere near as much as it effected others who lost family, friends and loved ones. It was a terrible thing to happen and its good that hes dead but it doesnt stop anything. I dont care about his death purely because I am lucky enough to have been uneffected. I have been lucky enough not to have to fear terrorism. We have our own terrorists here. Although disbanded weve been living in fear of paramilitary groups and sectarianism. We still are. Its the same thing. One dick decrees that one group of people have to die. Thousands of people follow the orders blindly because theyre stupid enough to do so out of pride of their country. The IRA where stupid enough to bomb their own people. Theyre still doing it. Bombs placed infront of schools, on railway lines and in the middle of towns. Its the same bullshit on a bigger scale. Anyone who takes offence at anything Ive said. Im sorry. You wont have to hear it again.

What im trying to say here for those who dont care enough to read this.

Im sorry I caused offense.
I am stupid and should shut my face.
Terrorists are idiots following the word of an even bigger idiot.
Ive lived through my own share of terrorism and living in fear.

Although one last thing.

When stuff like this happens. Dont post it online.
Either celebrate offline with like minded people or grumble to yourself quietly and move on.
This just causes arguments.

This is coming from someone who lived through 9/11, who watched the Twin Towers pass before his train window on the morning it happened, who saw all the firehouses strangely quiet and closed.

I'm glad Bin Laden is dead, but I understand why he felt killing Westerner civilians is necessary, and I think he partially accomplished his aims even though his methods were misguided. And yeah, I think Western governments had it coming. For a looooooong time.

Western governments had been oppressing, using, and mistreating the ME for decades, colluding with oppressive regimes for the benefit of corporatist and dictatorship interests. The western civilians have turned a blind eye to it, because they simply didn't know any better. They were more concerned about the USSR, Warsaw Pact, AIDS, etc etc.

What can he do? There's no army he can join to fight in a war against these gov'ts doing injustice to the people he cares about. There is no podium to voice his concerns. He wanted to resist, but there was no avenue. What fringe activists there were, criminal or otherwise, were fragmented, uncoordinated, local. They had no uniting vision or goal.

He had the money. He had the influence. And he had the vision. It was flawed, even more flawed than Marx used to be. But he had it: an understanding of what the world was.

And now, everyone on Earth has an understanding of what he originally was about. That the ME is chock full of corrupt regimes upheld by Western corporatist interests, and the politicians who are in bed with them. Now we all know how full of bulls--t Bush and his Neo-cons were. Now we all know why the USA truly invaded Iraq. Now we all know how the USA was in bed with a sh-tload of corrupt autocrats sucking the ME dry, and is now stammering and pasty-faced when the citizens of ME are overthrowing those POS excuses for leaders in a truly democratic grass-roots manner. For Western citizens, it all (truly) started with the Twin Towers.

Bin Laden saw a few of his goals come to fruition, though not in the manner that he imagined it.