Does Osama Bin Laden really exist?

Great Debates
1

OK, my thread title is a bit of a teaser. It seems that a man of that name, with the basic background popularly attributed to him, may well exist. But most importantly, is OBL not largely and most importantly a media/government construct?

He is someone whom it would be necessary to create if he did not exist. The US desparately needs someone to blame (other than the actual terrorists on the planes, who are of course all dead). OBL is serving a starring role as the personification of evil, an embodiment of “The Terrorists” against whom war can be declared.

Think about this theoretical scenario. Imagine for a moment that the US government had up to this time no real evidence pinning the blame for the hijackings upon any person or group, other than those on the planes. Imagine if Bush had to be honest and stand up in front of the US and say “We would dearly like to avenge this horrific massacre, but we don’t know of anyone other than those on the planes who was in any way truly responsible. So we can’t do anything except jump on their graves.”

If Bush said that, he would be the one facing the lynch mob, rather than OBL.

In fact the the only premise in my scenario that is imagined is that of Bush being honest. My newspaper this morning was dominated by 6 pages detailing the preparations for war against OBL and his compatriots. Buried on the 7th page was a story stating quite simply that there is as yet little if any evidence linking OBL to the hijackings, and stating that a CIA source recently confirmed that OBL may well not have had anything to do with the attacks at all. Clearly the lynch mob is in full swing, and the mere fact that the “sand nigger we’re goin’ to hang” may not have committed the crime has little news value.

What gives me some hope that we can yet avoid WWIII, is that as media/government constructs can be created, so they can be destroyed. Hopefully the US will just play about with it’s war toys, announce (whether it has or not) that it has successfully killed OBL and “The Terrorists” and go home. Hopefully before offending so many countries that a proper war eventuates. (But unfortunately most probably not before creating a whole new generation of US-hating Muslim terrorists, which is the real problem, but we are beyond that now).

Discuss.

2

Perhaps like me you hadn’t really heard of Bin Laden before the WTC thing?

Seems to be though, that the character was well known prior and has quite a history. It’s not like they really had to make anything up, and so it doesn’t seem as though they have “constructed” Bin Laden (except of course that it seems the good ol’ US of A taught the man how to be a really good terrorist).

3

Jane’s is well-respected and discusses earlier info. about BL:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes010911_2_n.shtml

“As far back as September 1999, Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor (JTSM) reported that law enforcement agencies were fearful that bin Laden’s group was preparing for a series of new attacks on US targets, especially financial targets in New York.”

4

The U.S. needn’t demonize bin Laden; he’s quite up to the job. A quote pulled from this article:

**
From that same article (which also quoted a bin Laden confession regarding prior terorism):

**
So, it certainly seems probable to me that bin Laden, his organization or some organization closely associated with al-Queda was responsible for the WTC attack or at least knew of it, even if it is not certain based on currently available public information. But we’ll see. Secretary Powell has assured the world that the case will be presented. Determining how to assign culpability may be difficult, given the way these groups are organized—given their very nature. These are not the types of organizations that keep minutes, that have accounting records. No prior evidence has satisfied the Taliban, and bin Laden has admitted to certain acts of terrorism. But if you agree with the overall strategic objective that President Bush outlined, bin Laden and al-Queda–both regular and unrepentant exporters of terrorism–must be part of the plan, and a big part of it.

Put another way: Even if focusing on bin Laden provides a convenient way for the public to conceptualize the enemy, even if this serves the purpose of providing an expedient rallying point to start our efforts, that should not lead us to conclude that any of the planned U.S. military actions against the Taliban and bin Laden are not proper.

5

OBL has been around for a long time. He has said many things against Americans and the American way of life. He is not a construct.

Princhester said:

Are you serious? TOYS, you think these are toys we are playing with. I am sure those B-52 bombers that were deployed were full of G.I.Joe action figures. I think the grossly over simplified nature of this OP is immature in its nature. Look at Bob Cos’s reply, read that article carefully. We are not fighting a cartoon construct, this is very real. I would not construct something in your mind that is fake.

On that note, I understand Princhester, I too do not want to beleive that we are in for a long war against an enemy/ies. But the truth is we are. I want to continue a peaceful living as most Americans do. We are strong, and I say unite behind that strength. Don’t think this is a governmental fake. Its very real.

6

Princhester wrote:

“And [Captain Ahab] heaped upon the back of the white whale the sum total of all the sins of the world. … If his chest had been a mortar, he’d have shot his heart upon it.”

– Herman Melville, Moby Dick

7

The articles and views above do nothing but reinforce my opinion. Yes, OBL hates the US. Yes, he has been vaguely “linked” to various atrocities. “He once knew the guy that did it.” “The guy that did it once stayed in a camp that OBL ran. Maybe. Or not. We think.” Information about OBL and his “links” varies and contradicts. Read the wildly differing takes on his involvement or lack of involvement in the first WTC bombing in the articles linked above, for example.

I don’t know if OBL had any responsibility for the WTC atrocity or not. Face it, neither do you, neither does the US government. What I do know is this: the mainstream press are doing a good job of referring to OBL and responsibility for that atrocity in the same breath as often as possible in a way that is designed to suggest the two are the same, not because we know that, but because the US needs its allies to believe that, given the actions it is preparing to take in the Middle East.

But the average muslim is not buying it for a second. (I would be interested to know if that particular point is one that is being made in the US media). To the average muslim, OBL is being lynched without a trial, and they are being tarred with his brush, and the US is in grave danger of creating millions of enemies, where there are at the moment only thousands.

And I wouldn’t mind that so much if I felt that killing OBL and his immediate followers would put an end to terrorism. But nothing I have read or heard suggests that doing so would amount to anything more than a man chopping at his own liver to get rid of a cancer that has spread throughout his body. He isn’t going to get rid of the cancer, he’s just adding to his list of problems.

8

[HIJACK]

During the Gulf War, I made the startling discovery that Saddam Hussein (umm, chief bad guy or something) and Pat Burns (coach of the Montreal Canadiens at that time) had never been photographed together. Now, I am not saying they were one and the same person, but if you can find photos of both of them from the early 90s and compare for yourself… well, you will know how paranoid fantasies come to be.

[/HIJACK]

9

[Hijacking BagKitty’s Hijack] Even before the Gulf War I was wondering the same thing about Yaser Arifat and Willie Nelson. Just ponder the implications.[/Hijack]

10

Princhester…Where are you getting your information? Are you surfing the net and taking what you see as gospel? On that note are you taking everything you see in a paper or on the news as being gospel? Sounds like you are. Sounds like you do not remember, or cannot remember the attacks on U.S embassies in Africa. Bin Ladens training camps are all over Africa, those attacks were training missions. This is all very well documented.

Go read some older journalists reports of terrorism in the early 90’s. Journalists who were in the field. See what they have to say about Bin Laden.

Unless of course you are the sort to deny what you are seeing.

I will say it again. I understand your reasoning behind what you are saying. But this is a time to be uniformly informed, do some research and then come back. Non-of-us want to be in a war, but we are. :frowning: but this is also a time for Americans to keep their chins up…:slight_smile:

11

While it seems more likely than not that OBL does in fact exist, it is informative to draw parallels to history and fiction.

-=Disclaimer=- I am in no way implying this happened or is happening in the U.S., however we as a people have a duty to remain ever watchful and ever vigilant.
In Animal Farm Napolean as the head of the farm government needed to create a powerful enemy that he could essentially blame everything bad on. He used Snowball to this end in an incredibly successful fashion.

In Orwell’s 1984 the government used Emanual Goldstein and the Brotherhood as their symbol of hatred. Not only did they actually exist, but they even existed for a purpose very similar to that suggested by the government. In reality though it mattered little, because it gave them something to focus the populace on, something to blame all their ills on, and something to propagandize about.

In Nazi Germany, Hitler found his enemy in the jews. People were subjected to immense amounts of propaganda explaining how the jews were responsible for all of the ills of their world.

While two of the above examples are ficticious, it is interesting to note the parallels between these examples and the modern day media war being waged against OBL.

While it may be true that OBL is behind these attacks, I think we as a american’s have a duty to remain watchful and not to give up one of our most cherished and prized ideals: “Innocent until proven guilty.” Many people will say that this doesn’t apply because he is a terrorist. There is a grave danger in presuming guilt simply on the basis of the accusation.

While I don’t necessarily think the legal system is the best place to take care of this issue, I do believe that our most basic and cherished ideals should be reflected and observed in our crusade to rid the world of terrorism.

12

I think BeoWulf’s analysis of the OP is on the money.

I have no reason not to accept the NATO perspective of those atrocies.

But it seems to me there is a risk in creating a made-to-measure enemy. One that is simple, discrete, foreign, containable. Ideally, with some identifiable character e.g. headware. Something that a photograph in the media allows all to say “Ahah, He’s a baddie, if we can eliminate him, our way of life is secure”.

If you can’t identify your target, as the Russians found in Afghanistan in their conflict, and the US found in Vietnam, it’s more problematic … the enemy may even be within.

We are dealing with a many headed hydra and even an antisceptically clean surgical strike against OLB and his immediate command won’t solve the larger problem.

That takes time and (non-military) engagement.

13

Firstly, no, I don’t take my information from the internet. Any reason why you think I do? I take my information largely from a mixture of international newspapers, and international mainstream and alternative TV. I subscribe to one weekly international newspaper in particular that carries more African and Middle East news in a week than the average US media outlet would carry in a 3 months.

Where do you get your information from? How much of it comes from sources outside of the US mainstream? Before you start criticising others’ information sources you better have something to back it up: instead of vague references to old articles and untraceable authority figures (“journalists who were in the field”)how about some actual cites?

I bet London to a brick that the “information” to which you refer will be little more solid than the articles on the web referenced in threads above. That is, a load of inferences, maybes and vague “links” between OBL and bombings etc, and references to training camps that “everyone” knows about, but for some reason no one does anything about.

Secondly, the thrust of both my posts have been that I do not believe much of the thrust of the media reports I am reading about OBL. In that context, how much sense does it make for you to criticise my posts on the basis that I appear to be taking media reports as gospel? None, I would suggest.

Thirdly you imply that I am perhaps someone who denies what they are seeing. I do not deny what I am seeing. I am however (in common with many on these boards) sceptical of things I don’t see with my own eyes, particularly things described in vague terms by journalists. Anyone who knows anything about journalists knows that they will always try to make a story as certain, simple and hard hitting as possible. That means that if they say something did happen, they really mean it probably happened. And if they something may have happened, then they mean they have some vague idea that it might possibly conceivably have happened or not.

I think Philosphr that if someone around here needs to be more careful about what they read, and what they believe, it’s not me, and if you are critical of me for being sceptical, I can cope.

Finally, you may be the type to say “my government is getting my country into a stupid destructive war, so be it, that’s life, I will now go along with that without question” but I am not. I like to think I am a little more independent minded than that.

14

Well princhester, I do not think this is a time for arguments, debates yes but arguments no. I may have possibly taken what you have said a little out of context. Possibly.
I have been a teacher for 9 years now and I have taught in Hamburg and Munich Germany as well as Camberly UK. I have actively subscribed to The Bundesgesetzblatt and Der-Spiegel
out of central and northern Germany and the Guardian and Times from UK. I utilize the papers in class and they have been very helpful in the past couple weeks.
According to you and your international weekly newspaper you are well informed. But what I do not understand is how can you (one who is internationally informed) can deduce that OBL may not exist. And furthermore saying that you are skeptical of things you can not see with your own eyes…Yeah I can agree with that, but you, being so well informed, should recognise truth from mendacious reporting. We can surely sense what is truth and what is not.
Just how skeptical are you? Are you in Manhatten? DC? How skeptical can you be now?

15

Can I suggest that if you don’t want an argument but do want a debate, you take a little more time reading other people’s posts and then try, firstly, responding to what they say instead of misconstruing them (deliberately or otherwise), and secondly, attacking the debate rather than the poster?

Your last post is a classic case in point. Firstly, I never said I was well informed. On the contrary, you said I was misinformed. I then said what my sources of information were. I said that I was sceptical of what I read (i.e. that I was not well informed). And then in your last post you mock me for presuming to represent myself as well informed.

Then you go on to say that I deduce that OBL does not exist. Which I do not do. Have your read my posts?

Sorry Philosophr, you are the one trying to pick an argument, not me, and on your present form, you are not worth debating.

If your next post is like your last two, we are off to the pit, my lad.