The Bin Laden manhunt on Netflix

Many movies, shows and books exist about the circumstances surrounding the Bin Laden killing in Abbottabad, Pakistan. As with any other major story, this one is not conspiracy theory resistant either.

Seymour Hersh, a leading and very credible journalist, has his own account of how it all happened but not much discussion ever happened on that one. The US mainstream media as well as Hollywood have always been in the habit of repeating the official account of any story so many times that it somehow becomes the established truth even when it is not.

This latest and almost widely watched Netflix show on the manhunt of America's most wanted enemy has repeated the same official narrative about how Bin Laden was tracked through his trusted courier. In this show, Netflix brought in front of cameras and lights the members of the notorious Alec Station of the CIA.

There was one such tight group of girls who very obediently followed the directions of their boss and mentor Martin Schmidt. They were infamously quipped as the Manson's family. Some of those girls talk in the show. One of the Navy Seals, who was a member of the team that went to the house in Abbottabad, was also interviewed who shared some stark details. Actually, this one was exactly the soldier who actually came face to face with Bin Laden and actually shot and killed him.

The most interesting part about this entire film is not the revelations or the entertainment aspect of it but rather the stuff it doesn't touch upon at all. The show depicts the dehumanised mindset of the American intelligence and military communities.

They enjoy reliving the circumstances and the night when they killed Bin Laden. They brag about how the hunt was executed, how young occupants of the house, where Bin Laden was, were shot and killed. Most disturbingly, they sanitise their version of the acts of terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in their pursuit of Bin Laden.

Minute after minute while watching the show one cannot help but ask the simple question: how do your violent actions make you any different than Bin Laden? Why is it terrorism when Bin Laden did it but not terrorism when you killed more than 10 times more people just while looking for this one man? The arguments presented are that Bin Laden was the enemy of the American people who had declared war on America and for America to go after him and invade lands and unleash bombs on foreign soil was somehow kosher from the international laws standpoint.

Well, Bin Laden would agree with that rationale because that is the same rationale he had used as well while justifying his terrorist attacks against the innocent American people who perished on September 11, 2001. To him, the American people were the enemies and in destroying the American symbols of economic and military pride, killing innocent civilians was alright. Do an experiment; try listening to English only translations of the arguments of both sides and you would probably not be able to tell one side from the other.

No remorse is felt for the loss of innocent lives. No realisation occurs where one can see that the actions of their side were illegal, immoral, the sheer force employed unnecessary, that those targeted and killed had nothing to do with what this war was all about. America supporting Israel doesn't justify an attack against America where innocent lives are lost just as much as an attack on American soil by Al-Qaeda doesn't justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Taliban at the time were hosting Bin Laden. America accused Bin Laden of 9/11 attacks. The Taliban asked to provide proof of Bin Laden's involvement in order for them to hand him over to the Americans. That was quite a reasonable demand. Isn't that what the Americans would ask for if tables were turned? Instead, Bush announced the decision to invade Afghanistan. The rest is history. The clean shaven white barbarism is somehow treated differently than the one committed by the brown skinned bearded barbarians.