I’m re-blogging this article I wrote about four-and-a-half years ago, because of accusations today being aimed at Jeremy Corbyn that he has supposedly spoken up for Osama bin Laden.

What Corbyn actually said was the following; –

“This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died.”

He went on to say that Osama Bin Laden should have been put on trial. Even Boris Johnson has said the same.

The accusation is therefore a typical right wing media quote-mine.

The reason for re-blogging is that, at the time, I thought the killing of bin Laden looked underhanded, suspicious, and unnecessary, and as Corbyn appears to be saying much the same thing, I think it is a good time to re-articulate the reasons why.

You may notice my writing style was slightly different back then; in particular, I tended to use contractions a lot more, a bad habit I have made a conscious effort to iron out of my work in subsequent years.

TheCritique Archives

by Martin Odoni

So here we are then, ladies and gentlemen, we are living in a post-Osama bin Laden world. I can’t say I’m impressed with how this new world seems so far, but nonetheless, he was shot on May the 2nd 2011, and so of course, the world is put to rights.

Sometimes, just sometimes, assassination can be acceptable. In times of war, it can be justified or at least mitigated in certain conditions. And let it be remembered that bin Laden declared war on the USA in the 1990’s, so his supporters (what few there are) can hardly protest against his death on the basis of it being an act-of-war. (Not that I see much sign of them doing so.) But does that all mean that this particular assassination is acceptable?

When an assassination is attempted, it must, not just can, must, be mitigated by the…

View original post 916 more words