?"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that" -- Martin Luther King, Jr
Sunanda. Thank you for this quote. It sums up my initial response also.
I think that because of the world we live in, or at least the way the world is today, there was, perhaps, no other way to deal with this situation. But like you and Martin Luther King Jnr, I could not rejoice in the news of this death. In fact, it made me sad. Not sad for the man himself, but for the state that we are in today and that this is at all necessary. What a horrible mess. We can sometimes feel helpless and impotent is such circumstances.
But just today I read something in a book called, 'The Genie in your Genes' by Dawson Church that really helped me and in case it might help others, I'm quoting a bit of it here. This comes toward the end of the book and is better understood within the context of the whole, but he says, 'Yet once you realise you're acting in concert with a system, that you are not isolated, that your mind and your experience are subject to quantum entanglement in a multiverse of possibilities, then everything changes. The little effects you have in your daily lifebecome part of one large effect. That effect is large enough to change the world. It already has. And the results of humanity becoming a conscious co-creator in the great ecology of being are beyond our wildest dreams.'
I've deleted this as it was a panicky post connected with a computer problem that has now been solved. Sorry
I realise that of course this is an immensely serious topic now.
But just to lighten things up a tad: I wrote:
(as a recently deceased friend of my mother's, with Alzheimer's called him, "Bin Liner")
In her last years she also thought that the ex-leader of Iraq was named "Sod 'im".
OK, sorry if that's inappropriate but it all did make me laugh!
Now back to the serious responses I suppose ...
V
HP was not originally, obviously, set up to discuss current affairs. But many wanted to, which seems natural, and so the sub-forum was set up.
It seems to me that this topic branches off into a few (several) other topics which maybe should be their own threads? After all, I began the thread as a conspiracy theory thread and frankly have been proven wrong.
But as separate topics, what will be any retaliation now? Or perhaps there will not be one in a serious sense? Yes, pacifism has entered in - surely a topic of it's own? And how will this event effect Obama's next election chances? It won't do him any harm.
I think the biggest side-issue here, actually an immense issue, is whether people high up in Pakistan were protecting bin Laden all along. That topic will reverberate for a long time. I've not been able to see or hear much news the last two days, but I've heard brief parts from both sides: (1) that he cannot have lived 800 yards from Pakistan's main military academy without them knowing; but (2) it was precisely a good place to hide, and neighbours had no idea - it's a posh area of walled compounds.
I have to say, I think option (1) is going to play out as time goes on. That is very serious, as Pakistan is a nuclear power, and the last kind of nation we'd like to accuse. Even when last in India, by total chance I bought a novel which turned out to be of Pakistan attacking India, beginning in the very village by the coast I was in as I read the book!
I don't understand all the dynamics of the region TBH. But four years ago when I was in Mumbai, India, there's maybe the most famous place where travelling strangers meet up in the whole world. Leopold's. Waiters sit you next to strangers for the night. And I found myself talking to two simply lovely Afghan men, told them I was in their nation way back in 1975, and they were simply noneplussed, though they were intelligent, about why Pakistan supported raids and protected enemies who raided across the border.
[Leopold's is a large restaurant and bar with a huge variety of menu, but cheap - tragically the very room and table I was sitting at was two years later the scene of carnage when terrorists attacked Mumbai with AK47s: they went for Leopold's as it is a known meeting place for independent travellers. Few there survived.]
....So anyway, what is Pakistan all about? Who if anyone knew? If they knew, what is their motive in hiding bin Laden?
V
Just a couple more thoughts...
Among all this subject of pacifism (which needs its own thread IMHO), how about rejoicing that 100 United States servicemen went in there, 24 on the ground, under fire including from bin Laden himself, and a helicopter taken out? Yet not one of them seems to have had a scratch. It has memories of "Black Hawk Down" in Somalia, 1993, where in a long fight 18 American servicemen were killed. In this instance, why not see the good side, that even with a helicopter being shot down, no Americans were hurt in doing their duty?
Further, Barack Abama had the option of simply blasting the fortress from the sky. 22 people lived there, let alone any neighbours. But he chose this very difficult decision in order to save lives (only a few were lost), and yes, get DNA evidence.
I would say again, this was a perfect mission, and it was needed for the feeling of completion. Speaking just for myself, I would never rest if I didn't at least know what happened to ObL. Now we know, the whole world knows, and it must count a lot for people in the USA.
V
I also don't think it's something to rejoice about, but I think many of us will have a sense of relief.
I started thinking about this business of whether or not Pakistan knowingly 'haboured' him and whether or not the US knew... and if Pakistan knew they knew... sorry for complicated statement... I remembered how in the days following 9/11 Bush made speeches about countries that harbour terrorists are enemies of America - or something along those lines and that was the main reason for us going into Afghanistan, wasn't it?
Then I stumbled across this little article from 2006:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200608310005
CIA Director Porter Goss says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the al Qaeda chief will not be caught until weak links in the war on terrorism are strengthened.
In an interview with TIME magazine published Sunday, Goss said part of the difficulty in capturing bin Laden was "sanctuaries in sovereign nations."
So we bombed the wotsits out of Afghanistan - yet he probably scarpered to Pakistan years ago. In fact, it's been suggested that he was living in that building for 5 or 6 years, so isn't it interesting (or coincidental) that the above statement was made in 2005?
One can only speculate...
So we bombed the wotsits out of Afghanistan - yet he probably scarpered to Pakistan years ago. In fact, it's been suggested that he was living in that building for 5 or 6 years, so isn't it interesting (or coincidental) that the above statement was made in 2005?
Hi Tigerlily,
He got away into Pakistan for sure in 2001 or early 2002 at the latest. He would not have survived in Afghanistan. Re "bombed the wotsists out of" are you partly thinking of Iraq instead (?), a very bad idea to have gone into I agree? The incursion into Afghanistan is to try - a hard place to do it TBH - to create peace there for the people, but also to be rid of the Taliban government who harboured Al-Qaeda at the time.
One more thought on the subject of pacifism BTW. Assuming 9/11 was not a conspiracy and taking the official story at face-value, incredibly brave passengers on the fourth kidnapped plane, which was almost certainly heading for the White House to hit it, attacked the terrorists and brought the plane down at the cost of their own lives.
To say that they should have been pacifists in the situation they found themselves in is surely an affront to their beings, their families, and their memories. Of course I understand and deeply respect the spiritual foundation behind the pacifist ideology. But what would anyone have had those brave men on the fourth aircraft do? Just sit there like scared chimps, and allow the White House to be destroyed?
V
It gets even more extraordinary. It is now suggested that Bin Laden was a fan of the top English football division, the Prem (why not?), but especially of the Gunners, and in two secret trips to London since 9/11 went both times to visit the old Highbury ground!
But I didn't know this either. He had over 20 children from five wives, but one of his sons escaped Osama's mental attitude, and co-authored with his mother (Osama's first wife) a book about his time with Bin Laden. This is Omar Bin Laden, writing with his mother what it was like to live with the man. Whoever heard of this book? Or the alleged Arsenal link? The book could be an interesting read.
Omar, I read, lives in hiding, is 30, and his father even tried to send him on a suicide mission. But he now actually dreams of starting a world peace movement, encompassing all faiths and creeds. Is that not wonderful, that something so enlightened and Mighty could emerge from all this? What a wonderful contrast. And what a hope.
Edit to add: Yes the book is real. At Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Growing-Up-Bin-Laden-Osamas/dp/1851687564/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304473830&sr=1-2
I bet not one of us knew of this. Sounds interesting..... How come the book was so little-known?
V
It sends out a message that we are not "victims" there for the attacking, who cannot respond, but we'll always respond. THAT is the way to Peace. To make that clear. That we are not passive at any time.
It also perpetuates war, hate and loss of life. The twin towers must have been targetted by people who knew they were pulling the tiger's tail, and the tiger would respond. And so the same is returned with the death of bin bag. I'm not saying its wrong, but I'm not too sure its right either. Society everywhere evolves, and has been doing for a long time. Are we all really that simple as to not have figured out a better way yet, one which at least doesn't involve the death of 1,000s of innocent people?
You know, death is not real, in the sense of the Eternal.
So Osama bin Laden (as a recently deceased friend of my mother's, with Alzheimer's called him, "Bin Liner") is alive and well in the ultimate sense.
It's not a tragedy in the Eternal sense. He's gone to meet those who govern Karma, and he's gone to learn before he returns. They will have words to say and lessons to give him. Personally as someone who hopes to be a spiritual person, I have no ill-feeling towards him at all. But I can see the practical need for this closure in this limited world of time and space.
V
Perhaps he'll come back and live his next life in his opposite's shoes. There are those who believe this is how we learn from Karma, and my goodness won't his lessons be hard ones in order to neutralise all his negative Karma. One can only hope that at best, he learns quickly.
Just another thought. I often speculate that relationships between countries can be likened to relationships between individual people, particularly children in the schoolground. You hit me, I'm going to hit you. You hit my sister, I'm going to send my mates round. I'm a bigger kid than you and walk with a swagger, so you'd best not try anything or else. I'm not a big kid but I hang around with some, so anything you do to me, you answer to them.
If this as a metaphor works, surely there is some merit in at least exploring the options of "you were really horrible to me back there, and it upset me. Can we talk and find out why?" and simply ignoring the eejits until they get bored. by all means protect yourself in that scenario, but those who do that rarely retalliate.
Naturally, you are right but also, as countries represent millions people, matters cannot be solved for everybody, there ll always be some who have to perpetuate "justice" or "revenge" as in the vicious circle of Gaza or Northen Ireland...
I cant say I was dancing in my living room when I heard the news but hearing those who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers attacks say they can at last get some closure does make a little sense to me. The human idea of justice is complicated. Can there be justice without reprisal of the offender? Isnt justice more a subjective way of mending individual suffering, and if your loved ones have been the victims of some people still alive and well, isn't it natural and healthy to wait and hope for their arrest? Of course I think the best form of justice would be if all offenders (even me, say, if I snap at someone because IM stressed) were to FEEL the pain they ve caused and bitterly regretted it, thus apologizing and trying to create a better world/life afterwards...
Also, for a man to have (alledgedly) claimed that he never heard once any of his 5 wives' voices, for he shares Taliban's hatred and contempt for the female specy, O I CANT help feeling secretly (well not anymore) glad that he "got" it in the end, that yes there is a logic, that isnt Justice but maybe our closest interpretation of it on Earth. It may make me a lesser spiritual person, to rejoice a bit in his demise. I have to share here Venetian's views for I believe that even though ideally pacifism is the way, once there is a problem you are either part of it or trying to solve it, and that means often: fight it. In this instance, I will only talk about the threat of extreme integrist muslims, ie the Talibans, and their oppression or even destruction of women s freedom and health, and yes I stand 100% behind the idea of fighting them.
I try not to fall too easily to emotional swaying. well Im sure I am in some ways. and I hope I dont sound like some far right xenophobe when I explain my view:
our bodies are designed to fight pathogens, we have a whole lymphocytes/white blood cells system coming into place when the body suffers a wound or invasion from bacteria or virus. It doesnt for one second try to "agree" with the threat .. rather it "engulf" it or destroy it, then make memory cells that live on for about 20 years (someone is having an Anatomy exam very soon!) which will remember the pathogen and destroy it as soon as it reappears.
So just bearing this in mind, I think it is natural and necesary when identifying a threat to want to limit it or even proceed to remove it. Of course, dont dig into my words, I dont mean I am for race elitism or agressive international proceedings as a way of government. My idea is simply: protect your home....
Hi Naturally,
(BTW strangely for me I've had no time at all to see or read news today so I've no idea of any news of today...)
Again, though this is a most serious topic in all its ramifications, you made me smile with the "bin bag". Is that on HP how we are going to remember him by name?
Your next post: in my faith or tradition there is such a thing as "national karma". Though don't exactly ask me how that all works out, as obviously every nation contains wonderful people and not so good. But it is there as a belief or concept: national karma. Maybe you incarnate - for one thing - in a nation befitted for yourself? Pakistan, last I heard, is not emerging from this in a good light.
On national karma, maybe each member of a society is partly responsible for the nature of their government too? (Just an idea. It could be mathematical: the main portion of the population is responsible?)
for I believe that even though ideally pacifism is the way, once there is a problem you are either part of it or trying to solve it, and that means often: fight it.
I agree, Fadette. Who on earth wants war or bloodshed? It's a kind of insanity. And America's not innocent: they - and we! - invaded Iraq for example, and surely for no good reason?
But if that insanity is directed against you, sometimes you must respond IMHO. I think your anatomical analagy is a good one.
V
Fadette's Anatomical Analagy
I was just thinking about that a little more. That nations only exist by fighting off bacteria? And I wondered: is there such a thing, even, as a nation existing on Earth without armed forces, which clearly exist in order to be used if essential? If our body cells were pacifist, our bodies would not survive.
As for nations, there are probably one or two without armed forces? (I'd guess Bhutan for example.) But they exist because of the protection of armed nations around them.
Analagies are never perfect, but I wonder if we can take this further? Is a nation (or group) that needlessly invades another e.g. Nazi Germany, and al-Qaeda akin to a cancer? And the cancer has to be removed for the world-whole to survive?
Edit to add: STILL thinking about pacifism. It's a big subject. I think we all admire saints and sages of East or West who never retaliated against anyone threatening them. But that's personal: a choice to perhaps be a martyr, or crucified, etc. Just IMHO, it's different if one's own - other people and potentially millions - are threatened surely? What man would stand by and say to a burgler, "Sure, go ahead and kill my wife. I won't stop you." Same with the larger whole, such as nations.
V
What I will say is that the United States of America (my country) was founded on fear and continues to thrive on fear. It is how the Federal Government maintains control. The U.S. cannot survive unless there is a bogeyman to combat. Look at the history of the U.S. and you will see that there never has been a time when the U.S. didn't have some major adversary, whether real or invented, to keep the population afraid. The U.S. itself is very adversarial, which IMHO makes the rest of the world justifiably nervous. But to even suggest that the U.S. might cause some of the problems in the world is to be labeled 'anti-American'.
Actually Scott labels are not important, facts are, and you are quite right in what you say above.
Re Bin Laden though why (if it was him) why did they shoot him in the eye (if they did) and why in fact did they shoot him at all (if they did). To look at the picture of Obama and Co sat around waiting to watch it all on television is like WWWHHHAT! Quite honestly Scott the Americans and the Powers that be within seem to have such war mongering ways which are very worrying.
yes, Jeannie, America uses fear and enemy defining and fighting as a glue to hold its society together...but they re not the only one. In fact, when I look at the Middle East (simply taking them as example because they re always headlines of the news, I never hear of Butan nor of Finnish terrorists or Norwegian inner killings) I wonder why the emotions that I always "see" are fear and anger. As this is not a productive thought in itself (as information is always edited and manipulated by the media), to be wondering why for example it is Africa and arab countries that display the most recurring violence these days (again, I just want to point out: it is a wheel: African and Arab countries now, Europe a few hundred years ago...we take it in turn to oppress and kill neighbours or live in tyranny. plus there must be a lot going on in Buddhist "peaceful" countries the news have no time or access to report), I wonder if there is such as thing as cultural traits of a people and tyranny of a nation.
But then, I cannot explore my thoughts any further as I can clearly see how I am entering dodgy territory and do not want to fall into easy and racist conclusions.
maybe there isnt. Maybe tyranny is always lurking behind the corner, whatever place on earth you inhabit, maybe it s human nature. In fact, to dive into very pessimistic territory I remember reading years ago a book written by 2 male anthropologists and ape specialists, called "Demonic Males". Ha!! you think, here comes mad Fadette again, and her feminism. Well I wasnt going to raise this, but rather the unsettling study this whole book is about: all apes societies are based on oppression, aggressivity, seeking other tribes to attack them (chimps), oppression and harassment of the females (all of them, especially chimpanzees and orang outans), and even systematic killing of babies (gorillas: single males break through couples, kill the babies, make the "married" males run away and terrorize the mother into needing them..because they re just too destructive to be doing anything else, then have babies with the grieving mothers and so on). BUT there s ONE specy that couldnt be more different: bonobos. no violence, (now sorry for sounding pervy but it is in the study) lots of sex, in fact females mate with any male, no fixed couples, sometimes with males one after the other and this does not cause any tensions in the males. Males are attached to their mums all their lives. and learning/society is done from mum to daughter or mum to son. Also when 2 tribes meet, unlike every other ape specy, they dont seek war, they...Sit. Sit for hours. Have a big picnic, 2 crowds of bonobos. then later, a female in each group stands and approach the other one. both female go through...well, political correctness prevents me from being clear but basically there s alot of groaning and convulsions 🙂 then the 2 parties merge.
I know it all sounds like total rubbish but I remember the book to be a serious piece of study of ape society, on the background of human choice. They concluded saying we werent doomed to violence, there was choice. Bonobos or the others.
I sometimes think of the bonobos when I fall into automatic cynicism (which is just apathy and refusal to change anything, thats why I dont like cynicism, I prefer naive people to cynical rational atheists) hearing the news of genocide, mass rape as war tactics, shooting rampages or the weekly "a father shot his all family then shot himself" news. I think "ok, we re not just on earth to destroy each other, we COULD be beautiful evolved beings, like the (perv) bonobos!"...