Tag Archives: Osama bin Laden

Is it proper to laugh at this?

Last week we asked if all that celebrating of bin Laden’s death was appropriate. If you want a little chuckle, guffaw or snort about it and the related crackpottery, you might enjoy Eric D Snider’s treatment of the subject. A taste:

There was no time for celebration in the country’s newsrooms, where the mood was intense and serious. After three years of being very careful not to write “Osama” when they meant “Obama” and vice versa, now journalists faced their worst nightmare: a news story that involved both men. TV anchors were required to say “Osama” and “Obama” in the same sentence. It was a situation fraught with peril. A few TV stations, newspapers, and websites made mistakes along the lines of “Obama says Obama is dead.” We assumed these flubs were the result of simple human error — except when they happened on Fox News, of course, and then we assumed they were deliberate.

A week after the celebrating, was that proper?

Let me apologize right away for giving U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, more play than he probably deserves on a blog that’s mostly local to Kitsap County. This is a question, though, that speaks more to a broader question about the celebrations following the death of Osama bin Laden.

When Kucinich was first scheduled to speak on Bainbridge, I mistakenly thought the event was Sunday night. Fortunately we discovered the error on time. During the speech Kucinich was critical of Obama and NATO for the strike on Muammar Gaddafi’s home, which killed his son and three grandchildren. Kucinich had earlier issued a statement about the strike.

“NATO’s leaders have blood on their hands. NATO’s airstrike seems to have been intended to carry out an illegal policy of assassination. This is a deep stain which can never fully wash. This grave matter cannot be addressed with empty words. Words will not bring back dead children. Actions must be taken to stop more innocents from getting slaughtered.

“Today’s attack underscores that the Obama Doctrine of so-called humanitarian intervention appears to be a cover for regime change through assassination and murder,” said Kucinich.

Had the Bainbridge even actually been on Sunday, I’m sure the first item of discussion would have been bin Laden’s death. I wonder how Kucinich and the audience would have responded to that news given an opportunity to be in the same place at the same time when the news broke.

I heard quite a few conversations following Sunday’s news in which people thought the celebrations were somewhat creepy. Some of the celebrators appeared more influenced by the presence of television cameras, but not all of them.

In 2001 I didn’t think all of the flag waving was the blood lust for revenge some deemed it to be.

Last Sunday night I didn’t read whatever celebration there was as that either. In both cases I’m sure that sentiment was present, but I don’t necessarily believe revenge it was the dominant motivator for most people in the world.

If you believe the world one moment is better than it was the moment before, what is an appropriate response? Maybe whooping it up out on the street is not a bad answer.

What do you think?