Bin Laden dead

[rhubroma]

But it is these same corrupt and greedy local regimes who fund them..UAE princes who go falconing with bin laden etc. Dubai bankers with offices next to Haliburton that pay for travel and flight schools..The elite..

I know, and with recycled petrol dollars. If it weren't so perverse, it would be sublimely ironic. A sensational historical performance.

PS: Evidently they gotta give something back to their fratelli in Allah.

 

[Oldman]

While I respect your view, if you read my post above I have tried to clarify my position.

Firstly, it's not overly simplistic to claim, as Osama himself has let us know, that the Palestinian cause is one contributing factor to his pathological hatred for any non-Muslim society.

Secondly, that the reality is that the Arab democratic movements from Syria and Egypt to Tunisia, Libya and Morocco, are much more of a threat to his ideology than the Israeli state. And this is precisely why Al Qaeda recently struck tragically at a famous bar in beautiful Marrakech. The local response among many Muslim Moroccans, was to insult Bin Laden and wished him eternal damnation in hell for his great crimes.

Thirdly, that while being a cause it has occupied a purely symbolic and instrumental position in trying (important distinction) to generating a broad Arab-Muslim support base. And to attempt to galvanize a pan-Arab uprising against the Western presence and interference in the Middle East, through playing upon a touchy matter within the Arab streets and urban squares. Or, to put it simply, as a recruiting device. Precisely because of the case's so obvious injustices toward a fellow Arab people, at the hands of Israel with US compliance in terms of diplomatic and military support by way of its re-channeled foreign aid.

Thus I arrive at my conclusion above: namely that resolving this issue would be a positive achievement, not least of which to take away a fire that can be so easily fueled by the fanatics and ideologues and made into a convenient recruiting device within the womb of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism.

The positive thing, in this story of horror and carnage, was the response to the Marrakech tragedy by the local Arabs, which means that Osama and his supporters loose support from the very people the had counted on by their same criminal acts.

Now if we could somehow see to the Palestinians getting justice, another devastating blow to the terrorists would be made.

This conclusion plus your observation regarding corruption are extremely relevant points at this time. The youthful Middle East mindset is apparently open to momentum for more secular and elective governance but that isn't backed up by much experience. It's a fragile environment and Israel could gain much be making some bold moves towards reconciliation. Granted the generations of hatred and questionable territorial claims will always sustain flares of violence but recent events present the best opportunity in my lifetime.

 

[rhubroma]

But it is these same corrupt and greedy local regimes who fund them..UAE princes who go falconing with bin laden etc. Dubai bankers with offices next to Haliburton that pay for travel and flight schools..The elite..

All kidding aside. The US Treasury Department has had a long, and unflattering (to put it mildly), history with the Saudi Kingdom, which was ultimately used in the 80's toward crafting the deal of last century in creating a covenant that guaranteed continued oil for America, while safeguarding the House of Saud, and that assisted in financing Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets and the protection of international criminals like Uganda's Idi Amin.

No doubt, at the time, Saddam Hussein, was undoubtedly aware that the Saudis enjoyed a special treatment when it came to matters of international law. Their good friends in Washington turned a blind eye to many Saudi activities, including the financing of fanatical groups--many of which were considered by most of the world to be radicals bordering on terrorism--and the harboring of international fugitives. In fact, the US actively sought and obtained Saudi Arabian financial support for Osama bin Laden's Afghan war against the Soviet Union. The Reagan and Bush administrations not only encouraged the Saudis in this regard, but they also pressured many countries to do the same--or at least to look the other way.

During the 80's a US secret service and oil corporate agents presence in Baghdad was very strong, with government officials like Donald Rumsfeld having personal and quite cordial encounters with Saddam himself. They believed that the raìs would one day see the light. After all, if Iraq reached an accord with Washington similar to that of the Saudis, Saddam could basically write his own ticket in ruling his country, and might even expand his circle of influence throughout that part of the world.

It hardly mattered that he was a pathological tyrant, that he had the blood of mass murders on his hands, or that his mannerisms and brutal actions conjured images of Adolph Hitler. The US had tolerated and even supported such men many times before.

I can't remember the last recent event that sparked anti-American protests in Saudi Arabia, however, it clearly demonstrated that the only thing these Arabs hate more than their oppressive regimes is us unfortunately.

 

[redtreviso]

All kidding aside. The US Treasury Department has had a long, and unflattering (to put it mildly), history with the Saudi Kingdom, which was ultimately used in the 80's toward crafting the deal of last century in creating a covenant that guaranteed continued oil for America, while safeguarding the House of Saud, and that assisted in financing Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets and the protection of international criminals like Uganda's Idi Amin.

No doubt, at the time, Saddam Hussein, was undoubtedly aware that the Saudis enjoyed a special treatment when it came to matters of international law. Their good friends in Washington turned a blind eye to many Saudi Activities, including the financing of fanatical groups--many of which were considered by most of the world to be radicals bordering on terrorism--and the harboring of international fugitives. In fact, the US actively sought and obtained Saudi Arabian financial support for Osama bin Laden's Afghan war against the Soviet Union. The Reagan and Bush administrations not only encouraged the Saudis in this regard, but they also pressured many countries to do the same--or at least to look the other way.

During the 80's a US secret service and oil corporate agents presence in Baghdad was very strong, with government officials like Donald Rumsfeld having personal and quite cordial encounters with Saddam himself. They believed that the raìs would one day see the light. After all, if Iraq reached an accord with Washington similar to that of the Saudis, Saddam could basically write his own ticket in ruling his country, and might even expand his circle of influence throughout that part of the world.

It hardly mattered that he was a pathological tyrant, that he had the blood of mass murders on his hands, or that his mannerisms and brutal actions conjured images of Adolph Hitler. The US had tolerated and even supported such men many times before.

I can't remember the last recent event that sparked anti-American protests in Saudi Arabia, however, it clearly demonstrated that the only thing these Arabs hate more than their oppressive regimes is us unfortunately.

"Dance with the devil of our own design"

 

[rhubroma]

Global security and global poverty are in fact inextricably connected. The exploitation of the market and resources by the rich developed countries, at the expense of the developing and underdeveloped ones, has created social disparities between them and political and economic voids, which various cultures have found, or tried to find, ways of filling.

Among the Arabs this has bread a type of response that had best catered to radicalizing Islam as a "salvific force" against hostile non-believers and their puppet friends in local governments, rather than paving the way for modernization and democratic reforms, until now at least. In fact America and the West had till quite recently been rather skeptical and fearful of Arab democratic movements, to say nothing of Israel, which would potentially overturn a balance of power, in part established by them, consisting of regimes that were favorable to their oil interests (and a certain regional stability) but not the Arab masses of the streets.

It is precisely within this context that Osama and his present and future incarnations were, and will be, incubated and born.

In 1971 the underdeveloped countries were 25, against 48 today, and only three countries from among them have been emancipated from the group. This pessimistic image has continued to deteriorate by the military conflicts and civil wars, caused by the economic crisis and the increase of food and fuel costs. It's a situation that is simply not sustainable. One billion people, from the poorest countries on the planet, live with less than one dollar a day and the rest of the global community can't ignore their suffering. We're not even talking merely about a moral consideration, because one can't ignore the connection between economic status, peace and security. Thus so long as the underdeveloped nations remain marginalized, they will be the breeding grounds of future combatants of various terrorist affiliations, and consequently nobody can wait for a prosperous world at peace and security.

The international community today has another historic occasion at Istanbul, after rather failed ones at Paris (twice) and Brussels, at the fourth UN conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC), which began in 1980 and take place every 10 years. 10,000 participants to discuss ways of creating more economic balance globally.

I see no reason to be optimistic that any real and long term good will come out of it, however, I thought I'd mention it in regards to what is certainly a root cause of international terrorism.

 

[Oldman]

Global security and global poverty are in fact inextricably connected. The exploitation of the market and resources by the rich developed countries, at the expense of the developing and underdeveloped ones, has created social disparities between them and political and economic voids, which various cultures have found, or tried to find, ways of filling.

Among the Arabs this has bread a type of response that had best catered to radicalizing Islam as a "salvific force" against hostile non-believers and their puppet friends in local governments, rather than paving the way for modernization and democratic reforms, until now at least. In fact America and the West had till quite recently been rather skeptical and fearful of Arab democratic movements, to say nothing of Israel, which would potentially overturn a balance of power, in part established by them, consisting of regimes that were favorable to their oil interests (and a certain regional stability) but not the Arab masses of the streets.

It is precisely within this context that Osama and his present and future incarnations were, and will be, incubated and born.

In 1971 the underdeveloped countries were 25, against 48 today, and only three countries from among them have been emancipated from the group. This pessimistic image has continued to deteriorate by the military conflicts and civil wars, caused by the economic crisis and the increase of food and fuel costs. It's a situation that is simply not sustainable. One billion people, from the poorest countries on the planet, live with less than one dollar a day and the rest of the global community can't ignore their suffering. We're not even talking merely about a moral consideration, because one can't ignore the connection between economic status, peace and security. Thus so long as the underdeveloped nations remain marginalized, they will be the breeding grounds of future combatants of various terrorist affiliations, and consequently nobody can wait for a prosperous world at peace and security.

The international community today has another historic occasion at Istanbul, after rather failed ones at Paris (twice) and Brussels, at the fourth UN conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC), which began in 1980 and take place every 10 years. 10,000 participants to discuss ways of creating more economic balance globally.

I see no reason to be optimistic that any real and long term good will come out of it, however, I thought I'd mention it in regards to what is certainly a root cause of international terrorism.

I think there is some reason for optimism and it comes from another emerging country pursuing their own desparate need for growth-China. Their investments in impoverished countries, while self-serving; have provided vitality with the necessary involvement of the many standing tyrants. Other First Worlders should be taking note and as a strategy that will serve their own long-term security: help these countries. Maybe not out of any altruism but to prevent the balance of power shifting beyond their control.
Whether there is any social benefit to those emerging economies and reduction in jihad-like terrorism will remain to be seen.

 

[rhubroma]

I think there is some reason for optimism and it comes from another emerging country pursuing their own desparate need for growth-China. Their investments in impoverished countries, while self-serving; have provided vitality with the necessary involvement of the many standing tyrants. Other First Worlders should be taking note and as a strategy that will serve their own long-term security: help these countries. Maybe not out of any altruism but to prevent the balance of power shifting beyond their control.
Whether there is any social benefit to those emerging economies and reduction in jihad-like terrorism will remain to be seen.

Well China's "land grabbing" in Africa is not very encouraging. In fact it is a continued form of colonialism that sucks all the resources out of the province, provides great kick-backs and incentives to the local regime, while doing little, if nothing, for the native population.

Which is so typical and where problems begin.

 

[Oldman]

Well China's "land grabbing" in Africa is not very encouraging. In fact it is a continued form of colonialism that sucks all the resources out of the province, provides great kick-backs and incentives to the local regime, while doing little, if nothing, for the native population.

Which is so typical and where problems begin.

That's where the opportunity to win hearts and minds while defending self-interest presents itself for the US and others. It is colonialism and EU/US powers better pay attention.

 

[rhubroma]

That's where the opportunity to win hearts and minds while defending self-interest presents itself for the US and others. It is colonialism and EU/US powers better pay attention.

Indeed, because all too familiar.

 

[Cobblestones]

Well China's "land grabbing" in Africa is not very encouraging. In fact it is a continued form of colonialism that sucks all the resources out of the province, provides great kick-backs and incentives to the local regime, while doing little, if nothing, for the native population.

Which is so typical and where problems begin.

Yes. It seems that we have two models today. The 'Beijing model' which is authoritarian-imperialistic, and the 'Washington model' which is neoliberal-militaristic. I think neither of the two models is all that attractive. At least the 'Washington model' is based on democracy.

You don't have to go that far back (maybe 20 years) when 'democracy follows economic progress' was the dogma. The dictatorships in Eastern Europe fell. Tiananmen square was seen as a temporary setback. The cold war duopoly with its warmongering influence in Africa, South America and parts of Asia was a thing of the past. The 'end of history' was proclaimed.

But then something strange happened. Military expenses in the US actually rose to never before seen heights. Emerging economies with China in the lead, did not reform toward democracies. The transition of Eastern European countries was often a thorny one leaving large portions of the population unhappy culminating in ethnic violence. This transition is far from finished by the way. Africa, while making some progress, has seen lots of setback even without being drawn into the gone by East/West conflict. At least South America seems to have done fairly well, likely because authoritarian neoliberal experiments had already been tested and found deficient.

 

[Cobblestones]

(continued)

Then 2001 happen which put the development in the US toward neoliberal-militaristic on steroids. In the name of the 'war against terrorism' civil rights went out the window. Neoliberal policies were put in place which contributed to the large real estate bubble. This bubble financed the middle class by expanding their capability to incur debt, while doing nothing to raise actual income. When it all came down it nearly destroyed ever major financial institution in the US. The economy tanked and to avoid a depression, a large Keynesian stimulus program was invented which added to the tremendous debt incurred by two wars and years of neoliberal tax policies. A tax policy which served mostly the very rich and bringing inequality levels beyond those of countries like Algeria, Egypt, Pak!stan and Yemen.

How is the Beijing model? Well, beside being autocratic, economic growth will likely hit a wall soon because of shrinking markets in the US and rising commodity prices. What will happen then, I don't know. Demographically, China is in the unenviable situation of a rapidly aging population with a bulge around 40 years and a skewed gender balance. What the mid-term consequences will be are hard to predict.

If we ever were in a need of a third way, it is now. Looking at the revolutions in the Arab world, which way are they supposed to follow? How can either the 'Washington model' or the 'Beijing model' have any appeal? Clearly it is a good thing to overthrow dictators, but what to put in place instead?

 

[rhubroma]

I wouldn't have much to beg to differ with your analysis. In fact, its quite good.

Well if you ask Francis Fukuyama, he'd tell you that academia has rehabilitated his thesis, citing the young Arab democratic movements as a demonstration of proof that the world is indeed headed toward a global democratic, free-market system. The actual state of affairs is rather more complex, of course. Aside from the lessening of the development gap between West and East, there still is a tremendous difference along the North/South axis.

The case of China is indeed problematical. For there we have a form of capitalism which, while within a marxist system at the core, is, in reality, as you say, authoritarian and imperialistic. Not because marxist, per se, but because of a regime in power that delegates to a cast of capitalists just beneath them in the social order how production and development, and hence wealth, is to be generated for the entire state. Ironic that this was the same type of capitalism practiced in America and Britain during Industrial Revolution times, in the sense that the capitalists held all the power without troublesome regulations in regards to workers rights forced upon them by the state. And that this is exactly what begot the socialist movements and state intervention, which Mao made much purchase of when leading the revolution that formed the PRC.

The major difference, of course, is that American capitalism has always been practiced within a constitutional democracy and state of rights (even if many rights needed to be bitterly fought for), whereas that of China has developed within an authoritarian communist regime.

Although one point you make which I would like to comment upon somewhat, is that I don't see much of a difference between authoritarian and neoliberal or imperialistic and militaristic. The distinctions in theory have validity, however, in practice it's just a word game. And while its true that in America we have always had a democracy, we need to further specify "which kind", because the current one is spiked with strong accents of oligarchy and plutocracy, which makes the actual power of suffrage more structural and formal than it does as a real means to establish a political agenda that's fought over in congress in the name of collective interests and not mainly those of a few private oligarchs and plutocrats. Lastly, if certainly democracy has been a major selling point at home (and abroad as an ideological example), it has often been of little regard, if not at all, when doing business and making business deals within the market throughout the globe. And, as such, there are perhaps less actual distinctions (rather than merely formal ones) between how China and the US operate business wise around the globe.

All of which will need to change if we want a future in which the distribution of wealth globally is more equitable, which probably will make for a more peaceful and secure society than the one this imbalanced system has produced, especially since the fall of the Soviet State and then after 2001, which, as you say, "put the development in the US toward neoliberal-militaristic on steroids". China will also have to develop a more humane form of economic growth, or things could precipitate fast.

I only have one certainty: the current set-up can't last in the long-run, because after a while every great chaotic disorder eventually has an irresistible demand for order. I ask myself if to put things back in order there will be an all out invasion of China, that will take us right back to the Stone Age; or, will there be a Nazi-Fascist revival; or, will there rather be an unexpected birth of an entirely new order, more just, at least in keeping with democracy? And not with Osama.

 

[Oldman]

Cobble and Rube: your consideration of these issues is much appeciated and the lack of pointless rhetoric very refreshing.

 

[Cobblestones]

I wouldn't have much to beg to differ with your analysis. In fact, its quite good.

Well if you ask Francis Fukuyama, he'd tell you that academia has rehabilitated his thesis, citing the young Arab democratic movements as a demonstration of proof that the world is indeed headed toward a global democratic, free-market system. The actual state of affairs is rather more complex, of course. Aside from the lessening of the development gap between West and East, there still is a tremendous difference along the North/South axis.

The case of China is indeed problematical. For there we have a form of capitalism which, while within a marxist system at the core, is, in reality, as you say, authoritarian and imperialistic. Not because marxist, per se, but because of a regime in power that delegates to a cast of capitalists just beneath them in the social order how production and development, and hence wealth, is to be generated for the entire state. Ironic that this was the same type of capitalism practiced in America and Britain during Industrial Revolution times, in the sense that the capitalists held all the power without troublesome regulations in regards to workers rights forced upon them by the state. And that this is exactly what begot the socialist movements and state intervention, which Mao made much purchase of when leading the revolution that formed the PRC.

The major difference, of course, is that American capitalism has always been practiced within a constitutional democracy and state of rights (even if many rights needed to be bitterly fought for), whereas that of China has developed within an authoritarian communist regime.

Although one point you make which I would like to comment upon somewhat, is that I don't see much of a difference between authoritarian and neoliberal or imperialistic and militaristic. The distinctions in theory have validity, however, in practice it's just a word game. And while its true that in America we have always had a democracy, we need to further specify "which kind", because the current one is spiked with strong accents of oligarchy and plutocracy, which makes the actual power of suffrage more structural and formal than it does as a real means to establish a political agenda that's fought over in congress in the name of collective interests and not mainly those of a few private oligarchs and plutocrats. Lastly, if certainly democracy has been a major selling point at home (and abroad as an ideological example), it has often been of little regard, if not at all, when doing business and making business deals within the market throughout the globe. And, as such, there are perhaps less actual distinctions (rather than merely formal ones) between how China and the US operate business wise around the globe.

All of which will need to change if we want a future in which the distribution of wealth globally is more equitable, which probably will make for a more peaceful and secure society than the one this imbalanced system has produced, especially since the fall of the Soviet State and then after 2001, which, as you say, "put the development in the US toward neoliberal-militaristic on steroids". China will also have to develop a more humane form of economic growth, or things could precipitate fast.

I only have one certainty: the current set-up can't last in the long-run, because after a while every great chaotic disorder eventually has an irresistible demand for order. I ask myself if to put things back in order there will be an all out invasion of China, that will take us right back to the Stone Age; or, will there be a Nazi-Fascist revival; or, will there rather be an unexpected birth of an entirely new order, more just, at least in keeping with democracy? And not with Osama.

I fully agree with you that labels in the end are just labels and need to be filled with meaning in order to be useful.

With respect to China, 'imperialist' might be a bit wrong at present. What it means in practice is that China for instance is very actively trying to secure raw materials which it needs to sustain growth rates. It does not use military might; for this the Chinese military is too weak. Upon reflection, a better term which could be used is mercantilism. So maybe 'authoritarian mercantilism' would be a better description.

It also draws a better distinction with respect to the Washington model, which is clearly not mercantilistic because of the irrational (neoliberal) belief in free markets. But again, a better label would be 'corporatism' in the sense that firstly the economy and to a larger and larger degree also politics is determined by an oligarchy of large, globally operating corporations. It is, in effect, the military-industrial complex of Eisenhower's nightmares.

In terms of the US foreign policy, the distinction I would make between imperialist and militarist is that the US does not have as a goal to create an empire on the shoulders of countless colonies. In that sense the label 'imperialist' is truly one of the past (and I really should not have used it with respect to China). However, US foreign policy is clearly dictated by military strategic goals which, when achieved, are then in turn applied to better project military power even further. All in the name of opening supply lines, trading routes and new markets which play nicely into the hands of the domestic corporatist agenda.

All in all, I see the actual political development in the world taking a back seat with respect to the desires of a global plutocracy. This is what worries me. Coming back to the Arab Revolution, isn't it telling that they are strangely leaderless, and neither the US, nor China, nor anybody else is claiming their achievements as triumph of any political ideology over another (except the obvious one of democracy>dictatorship)? This is not celebrated as the triumph of capitalism over communism as in 1989. And only an imbecile like Fukuyama could ever see it as another step toward the 'end of history'. No, those revolutions do not fit in. Both the 'Washington model' and the 'Beijing model' would rather have 'stable' regimes which can be pressed and bribed to accept mercantilistic, militaristic and corporatist demands. This became glaringly obvious when you look at the tepid responses coming out of the US with regard to the fall of Mubarak.

I'll put some speculations about the future up in a later post.

 

[rhubroma]

Again I like your thesis.

As far as imperialism goes, empire, in the true sense, ended when the British one fell. On the other hand America's global hegemony has been based on things like military supremacy, the persuasiveness of a popular culture (what has been called soft power) -from Coca Cola to Hollywood "movies" - a firm belief in playing a decisive historical role and in having a providential calling as well as a mission (really propaganda) to fight for liberty, justice and expand wellbeing even beyond its borders through its very example, while, of course, relying upon client states and their regimes to supply the homeland with its raw materials and consumer goods: all of which very much conforms to the way empires had always built the image and ideology of the state before both their own citizens and the world. From the ancient Roman one to that of the British.

Well China, I believe, has increased its military budget more, proportionally, than any other country on the planet. So it is trying to build a military apparatus that one day will be on par or near that of the US, almost as if its ascending economic position requires a modern armed forces that is in keeping with an authentic global power.

What this will mean for the balance of world power and military strategy between West and East, remains to be seen, however, the rough contours might look like this: we will see much more military financing on the part of China of foreign states whose raw materials and markets are necessary to its own continued economic growth in exchange for special status privileges. At the same time, no doubt, America will try to effect counter measures in order to not loose too much ground on the Giant Panda, but surly will either way on the sheer inertia of an irresistible force.

Terrorist organizations, at this point, may have a secondary role in playing the one giant off of the other, by trying to gain power through political support within those strategic states that both nations rely upon economically, and then sell out to the highest bidder.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says

Lord Vader announced the killing of Obi-Wan Kenobi at the Imperial Palace on Coruscant

CORUSCANT — Obi-Wan Kenobi, the mastermind of some of the most devastating attacks on the Galactic Empire and the most hunted man in the galaxy, was killed in a firefight with Imperial forces near Alderaan, Darth Vader announced on Sunday.

In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the Imperial Palace, Lord Vader declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that agents of the Imperial Army and stormtroopers of the 501st Legion had finally cornered Kenobi, one of the leaders of the Jedi rebellion, who had eluded the Empire for nearly two decades. Imperial officials said Kenobi resisted and was cut down by Lord Vader's own lightsaber. He was later dumped out of an airlock.

The news touched off an extraordinary outpouring of emotion as crowds gathered in the Senate District and outside the Imperial Palace, waving imperial flags, cheering, shouting, laughing and chanting, “Hail to the Emperor! Hail Lord Vader!” In the alien protection zone, crowds sang “The Ten Thousand Year Empire.” Throughout the Sah'c district, airspeeder drivers honked horns deep into the night.

“For over two decades, Kenobi has been the Jedi rebellion’s leader and symbol,” the Lord of the Sith said in a statement broadcast across the galaxy via HoloNet. “The death of Kenobi marks the most significant achievement to date in our empire’s effort to defeat the rebel alliance. But his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that the rebellion will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must and we will remain vigilant at home and abroad.”

Obi-Wan Kenobi ’s demise is a defining moment in the stormtrooper-led fight against terrorism, a symbolic stroke affirming the relentlessness of the pursuit of those who turned against the Empire at the end of the Clone Wars. What remains to be seen, however, is whether it galvanizes Kenobi’s followers by turning him into a martyr or serves as a turning of the page in the war against the Rebel Alliance and gives further impetus to Emperor Palpatine to step up Stormtrooper recruitment.

In an earlier statement issued to the press, Kenobi boasted that striking him down could make him "more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

How much his death will affect the rebel alliance itself remains unclear. For years, as they failed to find him, Imperial leaders have said that he was more symbolically important than operationally significant because he was on the run and hindered in any meaningful leadership role. Yet he remained the most potent face of terrorism in the Empire, and some of those who played down his role in recent years nonetheless celebrated his death.

Given Kenobi’s status among radicals, the Imperial Galactic government braced for possible retaliation. A Grand Moff of the Imperial Starfleet said late Sunday that military bases in the core worlds and around the galaxy were ordered to a higher state of readiness. The Imperial Security Bureau issued a galactic travel warning, urging citizens in volatile areas “to limit their travel outside of their local star systems and avoid mass gatherings and demonstrations.”

The strike could deepen tensions within the Outer Rim, which has periodically bristled at Imperial counterterrorism efforts even as Kenobi evidently found safe refuge it its territories for nearly two decades. Since taking over as Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy, Lord Vader has ordered significantly more strikes on suspected terrorist targets in the Outer Rim, stirring public anger there and leading to increased criminal activity.

When the end came for Kenobi, he was found not in the remote uncharted areas of Wild Space and the Unknown Regions, where he has long been presumed to be sheltered, but in a massive compound about an hour’s drive west from the Tatooine capital of Bestine. He had been living under the alias "Ben" Kenobi for some time.

The compound, only about 50 miles from the base of operations for the Imperial Storm Squadron, is at the end of a narrow dirt road and is roughly eight times larger than other homes in the area, which were largely occupied by Tusken Raiders. When Imperial operatives converged on the planet on Saturday, following up on recent intelligence, two local moisture farmers “resisted the assault force” and were killed in the middle of an intense gun battle, a senior Stormtrooper said, but details were still sketchy early Monday morning.

A representative of the Imperial Starfleet said that military and intelligence officials first learned last summer that a “high-value target” was hiding somewhere on the desert world and began working on a plan for going in to get him. Beginning in March, Lord Vader worked closely with a series of several different Admirals serving onboard the Death Star to go over plans for the operation, and on Friday morning gave the final order for members of the 501st Legion (known commonly as "Vader's Fist") to strike.

Kenobi and a group of his followers were eventually captured while fleeing the system, and taken aboard the Death Star, which was in the midst of surveying the recent environmental disaster on Alderaan. Darth Vader called it a “targeted operation,” although officials said four tie fighters were lost because of "mechanical failures" and had to be destroyed to keep them from falling into hostile hands.

In addition to Kenobi, two men and one wookiee were killed, one believed to be his young apprentice and the other two his couriers, according to an admiral who briefed reporters under Imperial ground rules forbidding further identification. A woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, the Admiral said. Two droids were also reported missing.

“No Stormtroopers were seriously harmed,” Lord Vader said. “They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, I defeated my former master and took custody of his body.” Jedi tradition requires burial within 24 hours, but by doing it in deep space, Imperial authorities presumably were trying to avoid creating a shrine for his followers.

Lord Vader has denied requests to present photographs of the body, describing them as "too gruesome" for the general public.

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html

 

[blutto]

Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says

...good one...a nice play on this one ( and yes its from a dodgy site but the author is someone who always has something to say...and CV is quite interesting )...

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24698

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Funny! Reminds me of some members of US Congress complaining that the ATF's "jack booted thugs" were like Stormtroopers.

 

[Merckx index]

Meanwhile a few days after the bin Laden operation:

A missile strike from an American military drone in a remote region of Yemen on Thursday was aimed at killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric believed to be hiding in the country, American officials said Friday.

The attack does not appear to have killed Mr. Awlaki, the officials said, but may have killed operatives of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=1&hp

Glen Greenwald comments on this in Salon:

The other people killed "may have" been Al Qaeda operatives. Or they "may not have" been. Who cares? They're mere collateral damage on the glorious road to ending the life of this American citizen without due process (and pointing out that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law" -- and provides no exception for war -- is the sort of tedious legalism that shouldn't interfere with the excitement of drone strikes).

There are certain civil liberties debates where, even though I hold strong opinions, I can at least understand the reasoning and impulses of those who disagree; the killing of bin Laden was one such instance. But the notion that the President has the power to order American citizens assassinated without an iota of due process -- far from any battlefield, not during combat -- is an idea so utterly foreign to me, so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, that it's hard to convey in words or treat with civility.

How do you even engage someone in rational discussion who is willing to assume that their fellow citizen is guilty of being a Terrorist without seeing evidence for it, without having that evidence tested, without giving that citizen a chance to defend himself -- all because the President declares it to be so?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/07/awlaki/index.html

 

[Spare Tyre]

Meanwhile a few days after the bin Laden operation:



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=1&hp

Glen Greenwald comments on this in Salon:



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/07/awlaki/index.html

How about the idea that EVERYONE should have the right to due process, not just American citizens?

 

[Anonymous]

How about the idea that EVERYONE should have the right to due process, not just American citizens?

Hmmmm...mmmmm. Not really to pick a fight but there seems to be a fair amount of data to support al-Awlaki's involvement in widespead killing (any of his numerous youtube productions, for example). I'm thinking he deserves the same amount of due process he affords those he's complicit in killing.

Fair enough for you?

 

[redtreviso]

With bin laden out of the way. I'm all for the next person from Dubai that wires al Qadea money getting a cruise missile through their office window..even if they share space with HALIBURTON. Liberal justification.

 

[rhubroma]

Hmmmm...mmmmm. Not really to pick a fight but there seems to be a fair amount of data to support al-Awlaki's involvement in widespead killing (any of his numerous youtube productions, for example). I'm thinking he deserves the same amount of due process he affords those he's complicit in killing.

Fair enough for you?

Actually, in the legal sense, no. If we go on just emotions and put reason and principle aside, then, technically, we behave no better than the terrorists, for which trials under all the legal protocols do not exist. Or at the very least in an anti-Western constitutional manner.

Many jurists believe that had the US been able to capture Bin Laden alive, then he should have been allowed the right to due process just like anybody else. And that this would have served the image of a modern democracy and state of law (with its legal guarantees) better than having "taken him out" so to speak as we did.

It was likely the more popular result to have executed Bin Laden, which catered more to a desire for vendetta within the public squares and streets, than it did to projecting an image of a civilized state that demonstrates a clear refutation of the ways of barbary.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Hmmmm...mmmmm. Not really to pick a fight but there seems to be a fair amount of data to support al-Awlaki's involvement in widespead killing (any of his numerous youtube productions, for example). I'm thinking he deserves the same amount of due process he affords those he's complicit in killing.

Fair enough for you?

No. More-or-less as per Rhubroma's argument, I believe that instead of the ludicrous "war on terror" there should have been a pursuit of justice through legal avenues for the crimes committed on Sept 11 2001 and elsewhere. AFAIK this has been the case re the two Bali bombings.

 

[ChrisE]

Hmmmm...mmmmm. Not really to pick a fight but there seems to be a fair amount of data to support al-Awlaki's involvement in widespead killing (any of his numerous youtube productions, for example). I'm thinking he deserves the same amount of due process he affords those he's complicit in killing.

Fair enough for you?

The whole concept of the bill of rights is lost on you.

You really don't have a clue, do you?