Check Out Our Sports Photo Galleries Contact Us
Obama, Bin Laden, Gaddafi and James Bond
by David Farside
May 10, 2011 | 898 views | 0 0 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The assassination of Osama bin Laden last week seemed like a theme in a James Bond movie: the murder of Public Enemy No. 1 hunted down in a foreign country by elite government agents using stealth aircraft and the license to kill, getting their man within the sovereignty of another country. But did they really get their man?

There are many logical questions being asked by the skeptical public. Due to illogical answers given by the Obama administration, we have to discern between propaganda, political posturing, a lie, the truth and expediency.

Bin Laden was not the founder of the Taliban movement. His money and leadership provided them the opportunity to become a worldwide anti-American terrorist group. After the 9/11 bombing, bin Laden hid in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We paid Pakistan almost $2 billion a year to help us find him and went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan to capture him. So far, the war in Afghanistan has cost the U.S. government $455 billion, more than half of the $802 billion we spent on the war in Iraq.

Within our own boundaries, we established the Department of Homeland Security and numerous subsecurity agencies to protect Americans from another terrorist attack. Combined with airport security, additional CIA agents and increased security at our foreign embassies for 10 years, we’ve spent a total of almost $2 trillion protecting ourselves from bin Laden and his fewer than 1,000 faithful followers.

Economically and politically we had to find bin Laden to end the costly war and retreat to a more cost-efficient nation-building policy in Afghanistan. It was clear, as the Russians learned in a previous war with the Afghans, you can’t beat their army without bankrupting your own domestic resources.

Ironically, we captured and tortured suspected terrorists at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq trying to get information about bin Laden and his terrorist cells around the world. The prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is filled with tortured terrorists waiting for a trial. Which brings us to the question: Why did we kill the unarmed bin Laden who was the only one who could have given us all the information we needed under sanctioned U.S. torture policies?

Another question: Why did we honor and respect this murderer of Americans with a Muslim burial at sea within hours after his death? Oh, I know! It’s because, as President Obama said, “It’s who we are.”

Well it might be who we are, but it’s not who I am. We should have taken him alive, held him accountable in the court of public opinion and disgraced him by hanging him at the site of 9/11. That would have demonstrated to the world “who we are” and ended the political farce of democratizing the world for the sake of capitalism.

Our brave SEALs killed one armed courier; murdered two unarmed men (bin Laden and his son) and wounded bin Laden’s unarmed wife and his defenseless 12-year-old daughter at point blank range. I suppose some Americans could call that bravery, but I wonder why they didn’t bury the son with his father. Could it be they were hiding something? Maybe the blood sample was taken from bin Laden’s son and not the stand-in for bin Laden. Maybe they got the wrong man.

The only real evidence of bin Laden’s death is the DNA sample and pictures of bin Laden with a hole in his head. President Obama said the pictures of the murdered bin Laden were too gruesome for the public to see. They can’t be any worse than watching cadavers being sliced on the slab during any “NCIS” show on television.

Is it possible that bin Laden actually died in a cave six years ago and the Americans couldn’t find his body to prove it? Rather than end the war in Afghanistan, the Americans could have devised a plan to build a compound housing a stand-in for bin Laden with the help of the Pakistani government and military. Why else would we pay them billions in hush money every year? That would enable us to end the war in Afghanistan if we were losing or at any time it was to our political or economic advantage.

In 2002 Pervez Musharraf, then-president of Pakistan, told reporters that bin Laden had kidney disease and two dialysis systems were shipped to him in Afghanistan. Oddly enough, after the raid on bin Laden’s compound last week, there was no sign of any dialysis equipment. The U.S. government said bin Laden had kidney stones not renal disease. Someone is lying and we know it couldn‘t be the Americans.

If Muammar Gaddafi takes his money and runs to the hills of Afghanistan to finance and support the Taliban, replacing bin Laden as the leader of al-Qaeda, my James Bond theme will be complete. See you at the movies.

David Farside is a Sparks resident and political activist. The polemics of his articles can be discussed at His website is
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
Featured Businesses