Monday, May 02, 2011

Osama Bin Laden (UPDATED)

After The Civil War we did not kill Jefferson Davis and throw him into the ocean.

After World War 1 we did not kill Kaiser Wilhelm and throw him into the ocean.

After World War 2 we did not kill Hirohito and throw and him into the ocean.

At the Beginning of the Operation Iraqi Freedom we did not kill Saddam Hussian and throw him in the ocean.

It doesn't seem that throwing foreign leaders dead bodies into the ocean is protocol.

There are two things you can assume from this story.

1. It is made up, a beautiful noble lie for the masses, to distract them from the fact that gas rose 30 cents today. Or perhaps to help Obama's election strategy or just to give some vague hope that are country isn't pathetic.

2. America is now a murdering pile of shit. Instead of doing the normal protocol of getting the foreign leader, bringing him back to face an international trial. We just kill them and throw them into the ocean.

This second might make sense: considering that right now America is killing people with tax payer money in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lybia and Iraq all at the same time.

I want everyone to imagine this scenario:

The CIA and the Navy Seals call the president Barack Obama and say, "We know where Osama Bin Laden is, we can get him. What would you like us to do with him, when we capture him."

Barack Obama responds, "Kill him and throw him into the ocean."

Now before anyone makes up a scenario where, American troops were forced to kill Osama Bin Laden in a firefight.

There are machines that are being used to fight pirates in the Indian Ocean, that can send a sound wave that will cause everyone in its way, basically to fall over in pain because of the sound. We could not have shot that at the house?


But perhaps since Osama Bin Laden led no foreign nation, he was considered under the status of William Wallace and Vercingetorix but they were both captured and held for awhile before being executed.

Someone made this point on some forum, "Because in actuality, they did not kill him, but captured him to extract information. Obviously, they would employ any means to achieve this. Leading everyone to believe he is dead is the best way to prevent public curiosity and interest. And of course the Geneva convention agreement for the treatment of prisoners does not apply to dead people, or does it? Just my personal opinion."

That the Navy Seals extracted information by doing some heinous ass shit and didn't want anyone to see his body. Sounds plausible.

I don't know.

If this helps Obama beat the Republican candidate, and gets the democrats a majority in the House again, whatever.


James Howard Kunstler on his blog has proposed this amendment to the constiution, "Therefore, the remedy is a constitutional amendment re-defining corporate personhood as something less than, and apart from, citizenship. Who is the elected official out there who might take up this proposal?"

The Energy Information Agency, the agency that does the data on natural gas and oil reserves at home and abroad has had major cuts and no longer has the ability to collect the data needed, to understand why gas prices are rising.

According to the article, "For example, the agency will not conduct its annual report on U.S. proved oil and natural gas reserves, an issue of major interest in Congress as lawmakers debate bills to expand domestic oil and gas production."

That is great.

I am like, are you serious? I have childlike confusion right now.

So this is the state of my country

it kills people and throws them into the ocean and defunds agencies that collects the data on the liquids that give us heat and propel the vehicles that bring us food.

Oh my gucking god.

I feel like, William S. Burroughs was right, The Naked Lunch was true and a great prophecy.


Joey Martin said...

That sound wave weapon sounds gnarly.

haze said...

When I first heard the news, I was uncomfortable with all the rejoicing, but I wasn't sure why. This post has helped me sort it out. Thank you.

Steven said...

Not that I agree with it, but I've heard from the "experts" that the argument against capturing (i.e. in that case, killing) Bin Laden --and perhaps it even fits the quick disposal as well--was a decision the CIA made along time ago to prevent US citizens from being taken hostage as a means of ransom. Again, I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but it does gray the b&w of the situation.

frank hinton said...

very nice. the vercingetorix reference me laugh though.were wading in some bullshit up in canada right now too. seems like it said obama had 9 or so meetings about the operation. seems like if obama wasn't in the first phases of a campaign he might have opted for a capture as opposed to a takeout. unless your theory is true.

Eric Beeny said...

Great post, Noah...

theguildedpage said...

This cannot have effect as a matter of fact, that is what I suppose.