News Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan

[Lazernugget]

Continuing from my other post:

1)Again, It took 10 years to kill this dude

2)This is only going to wound Al Queda temporarily, then, like a wound, Al Queda will heal and strike back at us harder. This war like cycle is stupid, We attack, they attack harder, we attack harder, they attack harder... if we can't solve this using tactics other than death and damage, then we're just going to keep getting blown up...

 

[turbo]

Yes, Obama deserves credit for continuing the search and for having the guts to give the order on a mission that could have gone very wrong, but I would not discount all the stuff that was done in the prior years of the decade either.

I think you're glossing over the times when Bush said that Osama wasn't a high priority. Of course, now that Osama is toast, the GOP is congratulating themselves for setting up an environment in which Obama couldn't help but succeed.

It's pretty sick. Clinton didn't take out Osama, Bush didn't take him out, and when the Obama administration and the military/intelligence services pull it off, there is a great rush to divert credit away from him. I can't stand to watch the news these days because of all the packaging and spin that is put on every single situation.

 

[mayflow]

Continuing from my other post:

1)Again, It took 10 years to kill this dude

2)This is only going to wound Al Queda temporarily, then, like a wound, Al Queda will heal and strike back at us harder. This war like cycle is stupid, We attack, they attack harder, we attack harder, they attack harder... if we can't solve this using tactics other than death and damage, then we're just going to keep getting blown up...

That is the way war mongers work. I see no modern diff between US and Bin Laden and Hitler anymore. They begin to blend together in a hating and war-monging symbionce. The only diff today is that the US is super-rich and the peoples it kills in the name of freedom are not as rich.

 

[pergradus]

What "full truth" could there be of any significance beyond his death? If Obama was wrong and OBL popped up alive and well, I don't think there could be a greater embarrassment he would have.

Way to read one sentence of my post.

 

[Evo]

That is the way war mongers work. I see no modern diff between US and Bin Laden and Hitler anymore. They begin to blend together in a hating and war-monging symbionce. The only diff today is that the US is super-rich and the peoples it kills in the name of freedom are not as rich.

Do you have any idea how wealthy Bin Laden was? Did you actually have some point you were trying to make? What does how wealthy a criminal is have to do with anything?

Please do not post if you don't have anything sensible to say.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't recall us killing Hitler?

Way to miss the point.

Thank you.

I think you're glossing over the times when Bush said that Osama wasn't a high priority. Of course, now that Osama is toast, the GOP is congratulating themselves for setting up an environment in which Obama couldn't help but succeed.

Let's be honest with ourselves, Bin Laden's trail was cold for years. The infrastructure was there as CAC1001 said, and Obama presided over the mission that finally got him. Obama, apparently, may never have had the opportunity to get him if what Bush authorized was never authorized. Conversely, Obama made a tough decision that could have backfired on him, but instead paid off big time. Maybe a different President would have screwed it up?

It's disgusting that people can't give credit where it's due: to everyone. Are people so scared of their past opinions possibly being wrong that you can't admit to something that even the most hateful partisan politicians have already admitted to?

 

[Pengwuino]

That is the way war mongers work. I see no modern diff between US and Bin Laden and Hitler anymore. They begin to blend together in a hating and war-monging symbionce. The only diff today is that the US is super-rich and the peoples it kills in the name of freedom are not as rich.

Maybe you don't know who Hitler was or what he did? He didn't just star in a bunch of History Channel programs.

 

[cristo]

Sorry mugs, but you are out of touch with current law. What the Presdient did is quite legal.

But this goes back to another issue discussed in another thread. One person has (allegedly) committed a crime against another country. Is it legal for the president of that country to send a group into a third country to kill this person? That quote governed what you can and cannot do to American citizens: was Osama American? Otherwise, whose law holds?

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Osama has been killed. I do, however, find it very difficult to believe that the US were prepared to capture him (especially since the AP were reporting that this was a 'kill' mission). After all, they sent in circa 90 soldiers, and there was not one US casualty. Seems like it was all a bit too easy, really!

 

[Newai]

Way to read one sentence of my post.

I read your whole post. Anything else?

 

[turbo]

Let's be honest with ourselves, Bin Laden's trail was cold for years.

Neither you nor I know what the intelligence agencies had on him, nor if the "trail was cold". Clinton took some heat for saying that it was unlikely that the Pakistani government had no idea where he was, but it seems that she was right. Somebody on the inside probably gave him up IMO, but it's unlikely that we will ever get details.

Now, will we stop handing out billions yearly to an unstable nuclear power that could fall to tribal in-fighting? That's a tough one. Keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks if they look like they can maintain stability, or roll the dice?

 

[Evo]

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Osama has been killed. I do, however, find it very difficult to believe that the US were prepared to capture him (especially since the AP were reporting that this was a 'kill' mission). After all, they sent in circa 90 soldiers, and there was not one US casualty. Seems like it was all a bit too easy, really!

I don't think we ever said we wanted to just capture him, he was posted as "Wanted: dead or alive". I doubt he would have allowed himself to be captured, he'd die a martyr (in his mind) first.

 

[Pengwuino]

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Osama has been killed. I do, however, find it very difficult to believe that the US were prepared to capture him (especially since the AP were reporting that this was a 'kill' mission). After all, they sent in circa 90 soldiers, and there was not one US casualty. Seems like it was all a bit too easy, really!

Can you source this? 90 soldiers?? Some reports said there were maybe 3 helicopters. Dropping 90 soldiers into Pakistan "without Pakistan knowing" sounds crazy dangerous. "Oh hey, sorry Pakistan, we sent in a platoon of special ops to 'arrest' someone, suck it"

Maybe Pakistan was in on this. Maybe there were no US causalities because they only represented a small portion of the 90 soldiers.

 

[Pengwuino]

Neither you nor I know what the intelligence agencies had on him, nor if the "trail was cold". Clinton took some heat for saying that it was unlikely that the Pakistani government had no idea where he was, but it seems that she was right. Somebody on the inside probably gave him up IMO, but it's unlikely that we will ever get details.

Unfortunately, very true.

Now, will we stop handing out billions yearly to an unstable nuclear power that could fall to tribal in-fighting? That's a tough one. Keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks if they look like they can maintain stability, or roll the dice?

Thus why I have no interest in being President and having to make decisions like that.

 

[turbo]

Can you source this? 90 soldiers?? Some reports said there were maybe 3 helicopters. Dropping 90 soldiers into Pakistan "without Pakistan knowing" sounds crazy dangerous. "Oh hey, sorry Pakistan, we sent in a platoon of special ops to 'arrest' someone, suck it"

Maybe Pakistan was in on this. Maybe there were no US causalities because they only represented a small portion of the 90 soldiers.

The Pakistani government is highly sensitive to domestic uprisings. They are complicit in some US operations within their borders, but maintain a facade of deniability because domestic backlash is going to be virulently anti-US. This is not a big secret.

 

[DanP]

2)This is only going to wound Al Queda temporarily, then, like a wound, Al Queda will heal and strike back at us harder. This war like cycle is stupid, We attack, they attack harder, we attack harder, they attack harder... if we can't solve this using tactics other than death and damage, then we're just going to keep getting blown up...

Sometimes, killing is necessary. Some humans speak only the language of violence, so extreme violence against them is the only solution.

 

[rootX]

Neither you nor I know what the intelligence agencies had on him, nor if the "trail was cold". Clinton took some heat for saying that it was unlikely that the Pakistani government had no idea where he was, but it seems that she was right. Somebody on the inside probably gave him up IMO, but it's unlikely that we will ever get details.

Now, will we stop handing out billions yearly to an unstable nuclear power that could fall to tribal in-fighting? That's a tough one. Keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks if they look like they can maintain stability, or roll the dice?

There are very little facts on both sides so it is bit unintellectual to take either side and calling each other wrong.

 

[cristo]

Can you source this? 90 soldiers?? Some reports said there were maybe 3 helicopters. Dropping 90 soldiers into Pakistan "without Pakistan knowing" sounds crazy dangerous. "Oh hey, sorry Pakistan, we sent in a platoon of special ops to 'arrest' someone, suck it"

Maybe Pakistan was in on this. Maybe there were no US causalities because they only represented a small portion of the 90 soldiers.

My bad, there were 79 commandos + 1 dog (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-dead.html?pagewanted=1&hp)

I don't think we ever said we wanted to just capture him, he was posted as "Wanted: dead or alive". I doubt he would have allowed himself to be captured, he'd die a martyr (in his mind) first.

But in post 111 there is a link to someone in the white house claiming that the US attempted to capture him but he was killed in the firefight. I find it pretty hard to believe, to be honest, that there was any intention to capture him alive.

 

[russ_watters]

But this goes back to another issue discussed in another thread. One person has (allegedly) committed a crime against another country. Is it legal for the president of that country to send a group into a third country to kill this person? That quote governed what you can and cannot do to American citizens: was Osama American? Otherwise, whose law holds?

I think it is a grey area, whether assassination (if that's the right word) is technically legal, but IMO that's only because of sensitivities and diplmacy. It doesn't have much to do with ethics/morality: Bin Laden's death was justifiable whether it was a kill mission or a "dead or alive mission". And as I said before and as the above from both you and me implies, the inability of a legal system to deal with someone like Bin Laden makes his death preferable to capture.

 

[russ_watters]

But in post 111 there is a link to someone in the white house claiming that the US attempted to capture him but he was killed in the firefight. I find it pretty hard to believe, to be honest, that there was any intention to capture him alive.

Why? I think either seems reasonable. The strength of the force that was sent in doesn't really say anything about the goal. Heck, if killing him is the only goal, a really big bomb would have a higher probability of success (note: sending in troops meant we were also able to acquire intel and ID the body). In either case, why is it so important if it was strictly a "kill mission"?

I suspect the strength of the force was chosen because that's what fit in two helicopters and two helicopters was what fit just inside the grounds of the compound...

...and 79 is an interesting number, isn't it? [edit] Meh - not sure: don't know if the dog counts or not.

 

[Evo]

But in post 111 there is a link to someone in the white house claiming that the US attempted to capture him but he was killed in the firefight. I find it pretty hard to believe, to be honest, that there was any intention to capture him alive.

I'm sure capturing him was not at the top of the list. He'd be useless to us alive, he'd never give us any information.

 

[JaredJames]

[PLAIN]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/memes-untitled2.jpg

 

[cristo]

I think it is a grey area, whether assassination (if that's the right word) is technically legal, but IMO that's only because of sensitivities and diplmacy. It doesn't have much to do with ethics/morality: Bin Laden's death was justifiable whether it was a kill mission or a "dead or alive mission". And as I said before and as the above from both you and me implies, the inability of a legal system to deal with someone like Bin Laden makes his death preferable to capture.

But then again, justifiable depends upon where you come from, and which legal system you are used to, so it's all cyclic. There are justice systems in the world where the death penalty is never used.

(Again, I'm not saying I don't support the outcome, just mostly playing devil's advocate, before people yell at me!).

Why? I think either seems reasonable. The strength of the force that was sent in doesn't really say anything about the goal. Heck, if killing him is the only goal, a really big bomb would have a higher probability of success (note: sending in troops meant we were also able to acquire intel). In either case, why is it so important if it was strictly a "kill mission"?

I suspect the strength of the force was chosen because that's what fit in two helicopters and two helicopters was what fit just inside the grounds of the compound...

...and 79 is an interesting number, isn't it? [edit] Meh - not sure: don't know if the dog counts or not.

I suspect they sent in troops not only to collect intel, but also to seal the exits and avoid what happened last time when he escaped. You also have confirmation that you've got the right guy that way.

And I'm not sure... what's the significance of the number 79?

I'm sure capturing him was not at the top of the list. He'd be useless to us alive, he'd never give us any information.

You can never be sure about that, though!

 

[turbo]

You can never be sure about that, though!

That's a good point. Osama has been living in luxury, and may have squealed like a pig if captured alive. We won't ever know, now.

 

[CAC1001]

I think you're glossing over the times when Bush said that Osama wasn't a high priority. Of course, now that Osama is toast, the GOP is congratulating themselves for setting up an environment in which Obama couldn't help but succeed.

It's pretty sick. Clinton didn't take out Osama, Bush didn't take him out, and when the Obama administration and the military/intelligence services pull it off, there is a great rush to divert credit away from him. I can't stand to watch the news these days because of all the packaging and spin that is put on every single situation.

No one is trying to take credit away from him, they are just pointing out that a lot of credit should probably go to President Bush as well.

You complain about folks trying to divert credit from Obama, but it is equally wrong to act as if Obama did this all by himself, that there was no building on what had been done before.

 

[CAC1001]

You can never be sure about that, though!

If captured alive, the negatives would probably have outweighed the positives.

 

[russ_watters]

But then again, justifiable depends upon where you come from, and which legal system you are used to, so it's all cyclic. There are justice systems in the world where the death penalty is never used.

(Again, I'm not saying I don't support the outcome, just mostly playing devil's advocate, before people yell at me!).

You missed my point. I said previously that no justice system is equipped to handle such a thing as Bin Laden, so whether one subscribes to a justice system that doesn't include a death penalty doesn't really make much of a difference. Or to put it another way: one way or another, all countries kill certain people they don't like or agree with in certain contexts. It doesn't matter what country you come from or what sort of justice system it has, but it does matter what context you choose to judge the situation from.

Everyone has a context, relevant to them personally, from which they can choose to judge the killing of Bin Laden as proper.

[edit] I will say, though, and I don't think this will surprise anyone about me, but I don't have much use for an absolute pacifistic viewpoint. It's naive and inconsistent with reality.

And I'm not sure... what's the significance of the number 79?

It's 1 less than 80, which is a round number.

 

[Pengwuino]

It's 1 less than 80, which is a round number.

Damn numerologists.

 

[OmCheeto]

Before I explode in some over-analytical blah blah, I'd just like say; "Yay!"

 

[Newai]

Damn numerologists.

Wiki says that a "round number is mathematically defined as the product of a considerable number of comparatively small factors."

I get it. Sounds just like bin laden.

 

[lisab]

No one is trying to take credit away from him, they are just pointing out that a lot of credit should probably go to President Bush as well.

You complain about folks trying to divert credit from Obama, but it is equally wrong to act as if Obama did this all by himself, that there was no building on what had been done before.

I agree, the trail that led to OBL's killing started during the Bush administration.

But - to shamelessly steal a pic from Char - this is a huge win for Obama:

 

[Char. Limit]

I agree, the trail that led to OBL's killing started during the Bush administration.

But - to shamelessly steal a pic from Char - this is a huge win for Obama:

No worries. I just didn't want to post it here.

 

[CAC1001]

Definitely a huge win for Obama and he deserves credit for having had the guts to go ahead with it as it could have ended up as what happened to Carter or the Blackhawk Down incident.

 

[rootX]

Definitely a huge win for Obama and he deserves credit for having had the guts to go ahead with it as it could have ended up as what happened to Carter or the Blackhawk Down incident.

US drone attacks caught attention in the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425" . I don't see how this would have been something new or catastrophic for the US.

 

[CAC1001]

US drone attacks caught attention in the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425" . I don't see how this would have been something new or catastrophic for the US.

I meant if we had a lot of Special Operations soldiers killed or captured.

 

[lisab]

I meant if we had a lot of Special Operations soldiers killed or captured.

Yes, it would have been a disaster.

General Colin Powell was interviewed on NPR this evening. He said that dropping a bomb on the compound was an option, but Obama chose to send in troops to ensure the target was in fact OBL. Risky but worth it, IMO.

 

[rootX]

I meant if we had a lot of Special Operations soldiers killed or captured.

I noticed people mentioned it a daring operation many times in this thread but I had been seeing it daring the other way.

While we don't know the details behind the operation but it certainly was very bold to send 79 soldiers into an unknown situation.

 

[WhoWee]

That is the way war mongers work. I see no modern diff between US and Bin Laden and Hitler anymore. They begin to blend together in a hating and war-monging symbionce. The only diff today is that the US is super-rich and the peoples it kills in the name of freedom are not as rich.

It's time to support your statements.

 

[Evo]

It's time to support your statements.

He is no longer with us.

 

[Pengwuino]

He is no longer with us.

He get banned? or is he at the bottom of an ocean

 

[lisab]

I noticed people mentioned it a daring operation many times in this thread but I had been seeing it daring the other way.

While we don't know the details behind the operation but it certainly was very bold to send 79 soldiers into an unknown situation.

Indeed...that's why we scrutinize the folks we put in power. From http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110502/us_time/httpswamplandtimecom20110502insidethesituationroomweveiddgeronimoxidrssfullnationyahoo" I just read - this shows what it takes to make this kind of decision:

He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.

The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios - the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President's senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.

Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault. At that point, the operation was taken out of his hands. He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck. He was putting his presidency in the hands of history.

One thing in there I disagree with, though: "He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck." Well not really. Having SEALs on our side does wonders to tilt "luck" our way .

 

[DaveC426913]

He get banned? or is he at the bottom of an ocean

There's a diff?

 

[WhoWee]

Now, will we stop handing out billions yearly to an unstable nuclear power that could fall to tribal in-fighting? That's a tough one. Keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks if they look like they can maintain stability, or roll the dice?

I think we should "offer" to operate their nuclear facilities - to ensure their safety - asap.

 

[Pengwuino]

There's a diff?

Evo might have to make a speech for the latter

 

[Adyssa]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

 

[Char. Limit]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

Well, in my opinion, people like Bin Laden are a special exception. And you might be more credible if you spelled "hypocrisy" correctly, not that I'm making a hypocritical statement.

 

[DaveC426913]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

Again: the murderer that killed 3000 people was apprehended. This is cause for celebration. They would be celabrating even if he were alive, because he would be brought to justice and they would still have closure.

Independent of that: in being apprehended, he chose not to do so peaceully, and was killed in the process.


You presume people are celebrating because of his death. You presume too much.

 

[CAC1001]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

No it isn't. It would be wrong if for example in retaliation for the Lockerbie bombing, someone blew up a plane full of Libyans and people were cheering and celebrating. That would be wrong because you don't celebrate the deaths of more innocents because some a-hole killed your own citizens.

But if someone slaughters a bunch of your own people and then you manage to kill that very person, celebration is perfectly fine.

 

[Al68]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

Not if one realizes that that what is being celebrated is justice, not human death. They just coincided in this case.

 

[Newai]

Meh. A lot of people are celebrating his death. Though I don't know why it would be wrong to celebrate the death of someone who celebrated the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

 

[GeorginaS]

Again: the murderer that killed 3000 people was apprehended.

Well, the murderers of those 3,000 people were killed in the process of the act.

Meh. A lot of people are celebrating his death. Though I don't know why it would be wrong to celebrate the death of someone who celebrated the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

One would hope that the majority of people ought to behave with a bit more dignity than a terrorist, don't you think?