Kill Bin: 'Taking out Osama will justify new US assassinations'

Run time: 05:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_rmNXTZTpE   Posted on YouTube: May 03, 2011 By YouTube Member: RussiaToday Views on YouTube: 302   Posted on DU: May 03, 2011 By DU Member: The Northerner Views on DU: 520

 
Author and anti-war activist Sara Flounders says the killing of Osama bin Laden will be used to justify new US wars and extrajudicial targeted assassinations against political opponents.

Why did NPR News describe "Opponents of the death penalty and targeted assassinations" of being "forced to defend" previously "long-held assumptions" by the bin Laden hit? And why did European Human Rights advocates choose to do so by repeating the polite fiction that they would have taken him alive if it were convenient to do so? There would have been a storm of outrage if he had been taken alive, even to find out what he knew.

They'll insist that war was necessary by simple repetition where facts and reason wouldn't work.

They'll insist that peace advocates, anti-death penalty activists and others who are against killing for the sake of killing somehow know we are wrong. They will insist that we are all on the defensive now even though this isn't true, has never been true, and will not be true, and they will keep insisting on all of this without evidence, in fact, because it is not true in order to try to turn the lies into the truth in the minds of those who hear it often enough.

They will repeat their lies in order to insist that ideas about peace and nonviolence are the unreasonable ideas that must defend themselves. This is classic misdirections, to prevent people from confronting the absurd assumptions behind the support for war and violence.

Wanted Saddam Hussein placed under questioning either. Why? Probably the complicity of GHWB in crimes against humanity.

Keep in mind that the US paid bin Laden right up until shortly before 9/11; that might have been really embarassing to the US.