That's not something to gleefully celebrate [2] .
Apart from views such as that of Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who pointed out that a trial would have done much to discredit bin Laden in the eyes of his supporters, what such celebrations show about vengeful attitudes (see this post from the Christian Scientist Monitor website [a surprisingly good source of commentary], which says that celebrating bin Laden's death is anti-American and not biblical, and think of the comment I have read comparing those celebrating bin Laden's death with the Palestinians who celebrated at news of the 9/11 attacks) and people in glass houses throwing rocks (I have been concerned about First World's behaviour towards the Third World for decades, long before bin Laden went to Afghanistan in the 80s to fight Russians), I do NOT believe that this removes or significantly reduces the terrorist risk the world faces from a whole range of sources.
Furthermore, we still have the legacy of extreme security measures, including personal "searches" in the USA that are effectively a form of sexual assault (does anyone at the TSA have any common sense? [3] ) and other security theatre actions that have been implemented to address public fear/hysteria (see here for comments including that bin Laden's death is a Pyrrhic victory). I've got to the stage where, for several years now, I prefer to drive rather than fly, as I don't fit into the nice, neat little box that people have of what a female should look and sound like, and am liable to get hassled (I also leave my personal talismans at home, which is upsetting: that is to avoid triggering concerns of security people at airports, but leaves me distressed for the entire trip, including trying to function without something that is important to me).
The British (who are reviewing their anti-terrorism laws - see here) used to make a point of trying to keep things going as normally as possible when threatened by "terrorism" in various situations - e.g., "the troubles" (and many other places as well, mostly places they had invaded as part of building the British Empire). That lesson appears to have been lost in the last decade or so ...
Now, let's look at Ireland. During and after the Roman Empire, the Irish raided the Brits, and that may have led (e.g. through karmic return) to the English invasion centuries later. The later invasion became (or was always intended to be!) an occupation, as part of that occupation discrimination became entrenched against the Catholic Irish, that plus the simple fact of occupation led to attempts at independence - which was ultimately successful in the larger portion of Ireland, but the Northern part, where there were more Protestants/people presumed to be of English heritage, continued to be part of the British Empire, and continued the discrimination until eventually the IRA started its campaign - against Northern Irish people as much as against the English. It was, in effect, a civil war, and they are the nastiest, dirtiest of wars - read up on the American Civil War (where total warfare and what were effectively concentration camps were used by Americans against Americans) and the English War of the Roses. The English resisted giving in to the terror campaign of "the troubles" - but they also made colossal, catastrophic mistakes such as Bloody Sunday, and it was eventually movements for peace that I have mentioned previously, such as the mothers protesting against the loss of their children (see here for instance), which led to a serious move towards both peace. Importantly, there was also some action over these decades to redress some of the wrongs arising from discrimination (see here).
I've seen major, violent conflicts come out of discrimination two other times in this life that I can recall as I write this: in Bangladesh, then Eastern Pakistan, when I was a child beginning to take an interest in world politics (see here), and in Sri Lanka - where early scenes of violence reminded me of what I saw in reports from Bangladesh (see here and here). Then, of course, there's the whole South African apartheid history, a terrible time of terrible actions inspired by the "White Australia" policy of my nation ... (at least the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was something to come out of that terrible time which may inspire the rest of the world to do better in many areas)
The campaigns attributed to bin Laden's mob and related cronies/mobs have a complex set of causes, and the people fighting them are not necessarily the personally disadvantaged many think are involved (see here), but I consider there are human rights issues (including poverty/hunger/development issues) which need to be addressed as part of contributing towards the world being a safe and stable place for all - and I do mean ALL, not just First World economic interests (whether those are American, British, French, Australian or other).The Wikipedia entry on terrorism has interesting comments in the sections on motivations (including what US "patriots" did on collaborators during the War of Independence) and responses (including - surprise! surprise! - "preemptive humanitarian activities" ... I'm also very aware of the appalling history of my nation [Australia] with regard to indigenous people: the point is, no-one has a perfect history - people in glass houses should not throw rocks).
I personally considered the invasion of Afghanistan) after 9/11 justified. Possibly it would have been "nicer", in a sense, if the change had happened much as the recent revolutions in the Arab world (see here [4]), but I don't think anyone in Afghanistan was in a position to do that after decades of active war.
However, as I wrote to various politicians at the time, I considered and still consider the invasion of Iraq to have been unjustified, immoral and illegal [5] - a status that is, in my possibly erroneous opinion, one of the main reasons that this whole exercise (meaning the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq) became such an effective recruiting tool for terrorists, rather than a measure taken against a morally corrupt regime (i.e. the Taliban) who had imposed themselves on a nation by violent means and then exported that violence.
I suspect the so-called "war on terror" (I'm glad President Obama appears to have dropped the use of this term!) will achieve many of its apparent aims (around reducing certain types of terrorist activity in certain areas of the world), but that will possibly also make addressing ALL of the causes of the terrorism (including the less credited causes such as poverty and the disparity in living standards between the first and third worlds) harder to achieve (incidentally, thank the Goddess for organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières - Doctors Without Borders).
Is the world a more spiritual place with bin Laden dead? Depends ... if he's earthbound, he will continue to influence people directly; if he has been taken to the astral or lower astral, at least the amount of direct psychic influence he can exert will be removed ... if the expected retaliation does not increase the amount of overall suffering in the world, maybe it will be better ... maybe the scale of reaction from bin Laden's supporters will psychically outweigh that of those who are glad to see his demise (although I tend to doubt that) [6] which will mean possibly not ... if the complications from Pakistan's involvement/lack of involvement do not exacerbate tensions or problems, maybe ... if the reaction of moderates in the Islamic world to the USA's actions are reasonable (albeit possibly disapproving or even mildly angry), maybe ... if the underlying causes of terrorism are not addressed, maybe not ... if the harsh, extreme reactions to security threats are left in place, definitely not.
Very few things in this life or the next are as simple as we would wish ...
Updates
Here are a few more links that are worth looking at and pondering:
- "Pakistanis are up in arms - but not about bin Laden ", 5th May, 2011; URL: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/pakistanis-are-up-in-arms--but-not-about-bin-laden-20110504-1e8cc.html
- From the US author Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Centre on Law and Security at New York University, the editor of The Torture Debate in America and co-editor of the forthcoming The Enemy Combatant Papers: "Perversion of US justice should die with bin Laden", 5th May, 2011; URL: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/perversion-of-us-justice-should-die-with-bin-laden-20110504-1e8bs.html
- "Bin Laden death lifts hopes of Taliban deal", 5th May, 2011; URL: http://www.theage.com.au/world/bin-laden-death-lifts-hopes-of-taliban-deal-20110504-1e8f2.html
"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"
Notes:
- Another set of conspiracy theorists I view with bemusement are those who are carrying on about President Obama's birth certificate: so what? Doesn't it matter most what sort of a job he is doing as President? Interesting that conspiracy nuts get a mention in discussion about whether to release photos of bin Laden's body or not - see here.
- One aspect of this that some may not have considered is talking to children about why people are celebrating at killing, which is supposed to be wrong (according to most parents). Here is one set of suggestion on dealing with that, albeit a set of suggestions that can be argued.
- See here, and here, for instance. (What's wrong with the stick figure X-ray machines, rather than showing everyone's genitals in graphic detail? See here)
- Here are a few thoughts (by others) on being a spectator, and here, here and here are some thoughts on Libya (I consider the last of these to be going beyond the mandate from the UN, as some actions being undertaken may be doing now: what is the solution? Empower and then fight harder in the UN!).
- It is ironic that the US supported Saddam Hussein against the Iranians after they got rid of the person the US had put in power: that, however, is not, in my opinion, a reason to leave him in power - two wrongs, with the second wrong being to allow the first wrong to continue uncorrected, don't make a right (I feel a bit like the invasion makes it a sequence of about three major wrongs that the Iraqi people have now been subjected to). Nevertheless, I consider the invasion to be morally wrong: the US-led coalition should have allowed the United Nations to do it's thing, even if the time that took didn't meet the approval of the US's head honchos at the time.
- On the one hand we have:
no. angry people x intensity of anger + no. of conspiracy nuts x intensity of suspicion + no. fanatical celebrations of bin Laden's death x intensity of fanaticism (yes, they're on both sides);
on the other hand we have:
no. calmer people x additional calmness + reduced no. of angry people x reduction of anger
... I'll leave the maths now, I think :)
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear")
Tags: attitudes, discrimination, earthbound, society, spirituality, violence, war, warfare, world
First published: Tysdagr, 3rd May, 2011
Last edited: Saturday, 7th May, 2011
