Bin Laden

[Michael Bailey]

malignd at aol.com wrote:
> Not one of the people you quote, nor anyone else in my recollection, would
> have had the balls to preach this palaver on 9/12.

so?  anyway, among the circles I travel in, which are not very
unconventional, really, there was and is a lot of dubiousness starting
with the fact that bL initially denied involvement...

Anyway on 9-12 in NY there were probably better things to do than
preach on any topic...
and there *were* organizations relatively quickly, such as "Not in My
Name" that propounded a non-bloody, non-revenge-oriented response.

>There are people who
> want to destroy other people and those others need not quiver and quail over
> their own desires for vengeance.  I'm glad they got him.
>

I'm glad he's not in a position to do any more harm.
Too bad about the way it seemingly had to happen, though.

let's say the US, knowing where he was, pursued an extradition.
Then he's up on trial and some dingbat with a dirty bomb holds the
world hostage.  You'd have to be really confident of anti-terrorist
capabilities to want that outcome.  However, that *would* be the
legit, good-guy way to go.  Plus you could see him in the dock and
watch great legal minds tussle with his oratory - I'd watch that...

another scenario: Hilary Clinton, impressed with my P-list postings,
sends me, armed with the collected works of Dr Martin Luther King,
Gandhi, Rumi, and of course Pynchon, undercover into the bin Laden
compound.  After 3 months of first intriguing his interest with catchy
quotes, then intensive reading, and lots of Afghan hashish, he
converts to pacifism and becomes a prominent spokesperson against all
forms of violence.  He donates his massive holdings to Oxfam and NORML
and appears on Colbert.  No, maybe Stewart...guest shot on 30 Rock...I
give him a kidney...