Big Brosky Answers The New Yorker: bin Laden vis-à-vis Che Guevera

Posted on June 2, 2011

0


bin Laden this. bin Laden that.

Indeed, there are many conspiracy theories and theorists out there. Truth be told, the “bin Laden” assassinated by the US, was the real bin Laden, or rather was it? “Assassinated” is the key word here, reports have been consistent with “bin Laden” being executed at foot of one of the the US helicopters involved in the operation.

Truth be told again, executing “bin Laden” was quintessential in context of US interests, after all, the major bin Laden mixtape of himself confessing the attack was a fake one; fabricated by none other than the Pentagon. Indeed, there is much fog around the bin Laden story and exactly who conspired what. What is more important is the plight of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

9/11 was not good for anyone with the exception of the powerful and wealthy. Of course, the entire conspiracy only brought benefits for certain interests, for the rest of the innocent people out there, we’ve all had to suffer the brunt of the conspiracy. It is saddening and hurtful for every firefighter and first responder in NYC as well as every blue collar worker that has suffered the brunt of the atmospheric and environmental damage that happened at ground zero.

9/11 brought about a bunch of Ground Zeros in Afghanistan and Iraq. Peoples on all sides have suffered this day in like manner other peoples have benefited. Indeed critical minds will always question: “who exactly benefits from this tragedy?” Politics is always about selfish oppertunity, advantage and benefit at the expense of another’s demise. If Ezra Pound were still around we know he’d be squarely pointing the finger at none other than Israel while also calling on all true Americans like himself to take up a more critical approach to who exactly is controlling their country. True, 9/11 blends in so much when it comes to American patriotism and exceptionalism.

Ezra Pound knew very well who was controlling the fed and how bankers had emerged as a secretive elite inside America. His reservations towards the American Jewry were largely what prompted him to exile "the home of the Brave."

By means of not executing bin Laden and keeping him alive brings danger on all fronts and conspiracy theorists would hence have an even greater field day. When Saddam Hussein was captured,distraught, yet alive, his ability to speak in court did bring about some astounding realities, one in particular being the gasing of the Kurds in which he, Tariq Aziz and Chemical Ali all admitted had nothing to do with and in fact, admitted that they crossed it on the news the very same morning.

Saddam pointed the finger squarely at Israel’s Mossad for carrying out the gas attack on the Kurds. Ghadaffi himself blamed Israel’s Mossad for the bombing on his compound that killed his child. Counter arguements would assert that one should not take the words of such mad men. Would bin Laden admit that Israel’s Mossad was involved with 9/11? That is a question that can no  longer be answered. Many questions die with these crazy people, so conspiracy theorists will have to piec facts and information on their very own alongside their very own biases, just ask David Kaye.

Jon Lee Anderson notes that there are indeed some very uncanny parallels between the story of Osama bin Laden’s life and death and that of another man who “declared war” on the United States, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, the Argentine-Cuban revolutionary who won the hearts and minds of so many disenfranchised farmers and peasants. The New Yorker Magazine is heavily mistaken in context of paralleling bin Laden with Guevara. Here, the finger does not solely fall on Anderson who wrote the article but on The New Yorker for having published the silly article. Although both are men who declared war on America, they were simply two completely different genres of feathers from two very different arrows. Guevara was undoubtedly a revolutionary and humanitarian who was not intent on causing maximum damage with maximum amounts of casualties, after all, the man was a doctor who took the oath of saving lives. It is rather doubtful to ever see bin Laden t-shirts with a clenched fist up being sold in the US and Europe thirty years from now. Guevara was about the people. Guevara was all about the socio-economic plight of the peasant being eaten alive and consumed by the merciless conglomerate super powers who each played chess with the lives of countless innocents. Indeed Guevara was about the revolution of mankind.

Osama bin Laden would never have a cigar even if he had another son. Che Guevara would never rock a Wahhabi turban.

bin Laden’s ideology was nowhere close to Guevara’s and to take things a bit more further on The New Yorker, many individuals have declared “War on America” and hence none should be placed in the very same basket, let alone printed on the same t-shirt, even the Chinese sweatshops know that. Since The New Yorker could not get it right, Brosky sets things straight and properly aligned. bin Laden did not blow up the projects as Mos Def and Immortal Technique would say however, bin Laden himself was not a revolutionary with a revolutionary mind-set. The bin Laden ideology was one precursed by the hypocrisy of the House of Saud to which he offered a hand in protection. After having defeated the Soviets, a Cold War superpower, bin Laden fixated his vision on an Islamic alliance between all Islamic lands by means of stating that if he was able to bring down one superpower, he is fully capable of protecting the interests of the greater Islamic world in context of outside threats. The position was stressed over to the Saudi Royal family which opted to not go along with bin Laden’s offer (and instead, chose the US to protect them instead of bin Laden and the Mujahideen of Afghanistan which was comprised of Muslims from numerous corners of the world).

The rejection exercised by the House of Saud was one that evoked bin Laden to, by default, become annexed. The House of Saud were perceived as hypocrites who took and sought the protection of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) as well as non-believers instead of their own. From a conservative point of view, Muslims are not to take Jews, Christians or non-believers as their protectors and hence arousing the disappointment of bin Laden himself. The House of Saud went one way, bin Laden took another direction. Here, bin Laden was provoked by ideals found in religion which is completely unfounded in Guevara’s predicament. Vividly, Guevara and bin Laden are not even two faces on the same coin which really pivots the position of The New Yorker as feeble one, as directly quoted below:

There are some uncanny analogies between the story of Osama bin Laden’s life and death and that of a another charismatic political outlaw, who, once upon a time, “declared war” on the United States. Ernesto “Che” Guevara, the Argentine-Cuban revolutionary and close confidante of Fidel Castro, was no terrorist, but he was a Communist ideologue who espoused violent political change, and who defied America by seeking to start guerrilla wars around the world—to create “one, two, three, many Vietnams” to draw in the U.S. military, sap its strength, and ultimately bring about a new, socialist world order.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/burial-lessons-from-che-to-bin-laden.html#ixzz1NVeBVwQC

Verily, Jon Lee Anderson’s article is inconsistent. However, having pointed out the flaw within the article, what can one do about the deaths of so many? Comparisons and contrasts are a rather simplified approach to politics (on occasion). Anderson’s article fails to propose any solutions to anything.

Advertisements