View Full Version : Osama Bin Laden is Dead
Of course they can identify him after a bombing, much less work than building a replica of the mansion in fact. Meat -> lab
Something is rotten here....your continual denial that this is the way the world works. If I am going to have to sit here and endure 10 pages of forigeners running through every little gotcha moment they can dig up I'll be beside myself
Your telling me the story of a covert raid which resulted in the killing of the most wanted man in the world has confliciting stories just days after it happend?
You see, that's why they should have tried to capture him alive and drag him to a court, that way everybody would officially know where he was, what the evidence against him was, why he was captured and how the matter was handled.
What they did was do a covert operation, shoot him several times, then buried him deep below the sea, waited for a week and only then came out saying he'd been killed, that he wasn't armed etc. without presenting any objective evidence so far.
And you wonder why there are different stories and conspiracy theories? :laugh4:
And about this being a war, I wasn't aware that Pakistan was a war zone/at war with the US, or that OBL was the crucial, single decision-maker of global terrorism.
The point being that the way it sounds this was a pure revenge for 9/11 matter for most Americans rather than a prevention of further terror attacks.
I'm not going to put blame on the seal who shot him because I wasn't there, I take issue with people saying that it was right even if it was technically murder for revenge and nothing else.
If someone directly affected by 9/11 murdered him for revenge that's one thing, but state-sanctioned murder for revenge just shouldn't happen.
Papewaio
05-05-2011, 11:59
The fate of Jimmy Carter looms large to any Democrat president. Those rusting hulks in Iran's desert must have weighed heavily in Obama's mind.
There is a direct (speculated) link between that event and this one, being that the team that was formed in response to the Iran stuff up is the one that went in. I'm not so sure if it was whom they nickname SEAL team 6, makes for an interesting piece of speculation.
As for bombing the place and finding the meat:
a) Pakistan would have to let you back in.
b) A piece of meat could be just a foot, and now you have a one footed kidney dialysis patient (two footed ones aren't very mobile to start with).
That was something I had against bombing Tora Bora, we were left with a probable, not certain death. Still prefer the idea of a day in court and then a short drop.
Will this make an iota of difference to the Al Qaeda franchise? Nope, KFC is still doing fine after the colonel kicked the bucket. Once an idea is out there, it can't be unthought.
I think there's a big issue of whether terrorists should be assassinated by governments. Spielberg's film Munich tackled that superbly, although even after repeated viewing I still don't know what I think about the issue (or what Spielberg does!). It's a tough one. At one level, in a war, shooting an enemy general is probably always justified unless he has his hands up and offers to surrender. At another level, we have incredibly strict legal rules about how states should deal with suspected criminals (including presumption of innocence etc.). In this particular case, I think killing OBL is far closer to the "enemy general" paradigm than the "suspected criminal" one but the gulf between the two is massive and appears something of a grey area to me at least.
On the practical issue of what actually happened here, I think we still don't know enough. I read something this morning about an AK and a pistol being at OBL's bedside and him going for it. If that was true, then even on the "suspected criminal" paradigm, shooting him dead was absolutely fine.
gaelic cowboy
05-05-2011, 12:18
I am not surprised. I did not believe the "wife as human shield" story; it did not sound remotely plausible. The wife trying to protect him and getting shot in the leg makes more sense. I'm also dubious about what exactly "resisting capture" means, given that he did not have a gun. The reason why I was not surprised is that we have seen several times with initial reports of missions or high profile combat episodes that the story changes later on (e.g. the Jessica Lynch episode; the sportsman who died in service in Afghanistan).
Whether they lied, I don't know. One thing that makes me give Washington the benefit of the doubt is that they change the story quite quickly and do seem remarkably open about such matters compared to almost any other government I can think off. If they were going to lie, you'd think they would brazen it out for longer. Because lying and being caught out within a few days just damages your reputation. On the other hand, the initial stories always seem more favorable from a PR purpose. "OBL kills his wife" is great black propaganda. And no doubt there's a segment of the population who catches the initial headlines, then never sees the corrections or cares. Many people are still confused about the lack of any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But on balance, I'm inclined to think it's a case of confusion of warfare and PR people spinning initial reports in the most favorable way they can. I'd rather the PR people were reined in and more circumspect, but in today's climate with all the bizzare birther stuff gaining traction, I can see why they fight fire with fire.
Not to burst your bubble of the all knowing all powerful evil CIA/USA military establishment but is it not possible all the stories we heard quoted about human shields and the like in the news were ye know made up by the tv and papers.
...is it not possible all the stories we heard quoted about human shields and the like in the news were ye know made up by the tv and papers.
No, as I understand it, the story about the wife as human shield came from a White House briefing on Monday, retracted on Tuesday.
I think we still don't know enough...
Having just typed that, the latest I read is that the rules of engagement were not to let him surrender unless he was naked.
Not to burst your bubble of the all knowing all powerful evil CIA/USA military establishment but ...
I don't know who you think I am (have I ever said the USA was evil?), but one thing I love about the US is how open with information it seems to be. That's why I usually tend to incline more to the cock-up than conspiracy theories when it comes to these changing stories.
Banquo's Ghost
05-05-2011, 12:49
Fragony, Banquo's Ghost, if he bombed it would have been hard to confirm the kill. Also, bombing civilians in "neutral" territory was probably advised against. Do I have to explain why or can you figure it out?
The confirmation of the kill might have been slightly more difficult, but had the decision to bomb been taken, the necessity would have been to completely total the area. There will be conspiracy theorists and deniers whatever had been done. As with other attacks, DNA would have been taken at the scene of the bombing later on. A bombing mission was the safest, most reliable option (from the US point of view) but the president chose a course that minimised the loss of even more innocents.
Point two: the United States continues to bomb areas in Pakistan with drones and planes and has done for a long time. To my mind, the continuing slaughter of innocent Pakistanis in the North West, for entirely dubious reasons, is of far more concern than the execution of an evil man. Thus the worries the US may have had over bombing the compound were certainly not because of upsetting a "neutral" Pakistan.
There, I figured it out. Do I get a balloon?
Banquo's Ghost
05-05-2011, 12:54
I don't know who you think I am (have I ever said the USA was evil?), but one thing I love about the US is how open with information it seems to be. That's why I usually tend to incline more to the cock-up than conspiracy theories when it comes to these changing stories.
My thought as well. I mean, why would the White House even try to correct this stuff at quite a cost to themselves? It's not like there are any witnesses left that are going to be believed.
They do it because America is still a great country that tries its best to be open. Sure, it fails a lot and gets flack for it, but that's only because we get to know.
Anyway, I liked the wife-shield story. For a man who sent young nutters to fly into buildings to murder thousands of innocent people going about their day's work, hiding behind his wife in a firefight was actually quite a step up cowardice-wise.
gaelic cowboy
05-05-2011, 13:41
I don't know who you think I am (have I ever said the USA was evil?), but one thing I love about the US is how open with information it seems to be. That's why I usually tend to incline more to the cock-up than conspiracy theories when it comes to these changing stories.
Sorry that was my fault the start of your earlier piece has the feel of someone who wants to believe the worst of the USA, however I reread it and saw that stupidly I missed the change in the second half of the post. I also tend to go with the same in regard to these incidents I don't believe that anyone can keep these kinds of things secret for long so I usually disregard any talk of conspiracies etc.
Having just typed that, the latest I read is that the rules of engagement were not to let him surrender unless he was naked.
Apparently twas because he might have a suicide vest on.
HopAlongBunny
05-05-2011, 14:18
All the media fluff is pointless.
OBL is dead. He was executed by the United States.
Executed is not a loaded term in this context. If he had been returned to the U.S. and stood trial for the death of thousands of people, the end result would be the same.
Who knows, maybe PlanA was to get him out alive; perhaps the sacrifice of one helicopter and PlanB simply made changes "necessary".
In any case, job well done SEALS.
Washington lied their tongues out. Anyone surprised?
In English, to "lie" means intentional deceit. And if this administration were lying, as others have pointed out, they would have stuck to their story until it was no longer tenable.
"Corrections," on the other hand, usually come quickly as new info is gained.
Which seems more likely?
You appear to be very ready to accept any negative theory about America without a great deal of critical examination. Blind spot, that. Best to check your mirrors and look out the rear window before backing up.
So Fox is crap and ABC, a liberal network is better? You make me laugh Lemur.
I'm glad I can provide you with amusement. You might want to look into this guy named Brian Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Ross_%28journalist%29), who is a fairly serious journalist. Note: by using the term "serious journalist," I mean that he has a factual, checkable track record for uncovering true things before other people, with little regard to who the facts help or hurt. The organization with the biggest beef against Ross? Not the Republican party. Toyota.
Rhyfelwyr
05-05-2011, 16:48
Crazy thread, some people really go out of their way to hate America...
All I will say is that I do not celebrate the death of OBL as a person. Because I never really see things in personal terms. He had his reasons for why he saw the world the way he did, just like we do. On the whole, he was a spoiled brat. Raised in privilege from day one, right to the end with his nine wives and massive complex (so much for hiding in the caves).
Something the more far-out western liberals tend to forget is that AQ are not the poor oppressed underdogs. They are often well (and western) educated, pretty wealthy... they represent the aspirations of the disaffected Arab middle-class. They cannot be compared to the likes of insurgents eg the Taliban, which really are just goatherders and what not. And lets not forget that the vast majority of AQ's victims were your typical oppressed Muslim peasant. For all the talk of Pakistan looking bad in this, we should remembers they have suffered far more at the hands of AQ than the west has.
So, what I do celebrate the death of OBL as the figurehead of Al-Qaeda. He may not have had a very active role in the organisation of late, but this is a huge symbolic victory over them, and sort of puts the icing on the cake after the Arab Spring, which itself did a lot to discredit AQ.
Also think I should add that IMO Obama did this whole thing perfectly. It was a good call not to bomb and kill civilians. And a good call with how he dealt with the body. Because whatever happened there would be conspiracy theories.
Should Osama have had a trial? Ideally, maybe so. But the reality is we were at war with him and his organisation. The Geneva Conventions don't take account for the nature of modern warfare, it isn't one country v another, nation states aren't billiard balls any more. If might not be official but we are at war with AQ as an organisation. So it is perfectly legitimate to hunt OBL down and shoot it out.
gaelic cowboy
05-05-2011, 16:55
Should Osama have had a trial?
I would say despite the fact it is plain as mud Osama did it, the facts to hand might have been a bit muddy to actually convict him of anything to do with Sep 11. I could imagine the trial dragging on for years with OBL spouting all sorts of rubbish everyday to the papers burnishing his credentials as the saviour of Islam, tis better he was topped however distasteful that may feel.
I would say despite the fact it is plain as mud Osama did it, the facts to hand might have been a bit muddy to actually convict him of anything to do with Sep 11.
You see no potential discrapancy in these two statements? You should work at Guantanamo bay. The interrogators were told to see constant protestations of innocence as proof that they were terrorist masterminds schooled in anti-interrogation by AQ.... oh **** - it turns out some of them really were just shepherds :laugh4:
gaelic cowboy
05-05-2011, 17:26
You see no potential discrapancy in these two statements? You should work at Guantanamo bay. The interrogators were told to see constant protestations of innocence as proof that they were terrorist masterminds schooled in anti-interrogation by AQ.... oh **** - it turns out some of them really were just shepherds :laugh4:
No I see no discrepency at all cos he said himself he did Sep 11th in a video, but that does not prove he did it now does it.
I agree with the fact that taking OBL back to America for trial wouldn't have been wise.
I'm not versed with America's legal system, or whether it is as dysfunctional in certain situations as our own, but trying to prove a known terrorist is guilty in a court of law with full proceedings is a waste of time and resource.
As an example I'll cite the lone survivor of the group who attacked Bombay in 2008. Nearly three years later, that man is still alive behind bars, while his trial dragged on. In the meantime he's been getting three full meals a day inside his cell (which is more than what many millions in this country can manage). The cell itself was made specially, lest some of the other prisoners try and harm him, far as I can remember I actually read an article where it was claimed that an overpass was being made so that no road passed anywhere close to the prison compound where he was held. Now after his conviction from the High court, he has a chance to appeal to the Supreme court, where his case is likely to go on for several years again. And once irrevocably convicted, it will still take a few years for the sentence to actually be carried out.
So the point I'm basically trying to make is, that when you know a person is utterly guilty, no sort of logic can justify them being put on any sort of trial at all. Shot on sight and dumped into the sea is being kind to a man who was behind the death of thousands of innocent civilians.
Yes, bin Laden thankfully.
And therein lies the real story for those of us who champion human rights. President Obama could have bombed the entire complex flat, thus killing many civilians and probably half the Abbottabad suburbs. No risk to US forces, no confused after action stories, just as much acclaim.
The fate of Jimmy Carter looms large to any Democrat president. Those rusting hulks in Iran's desert must have weighed heavily in Obama's mind. Yet he took the right decision and saved a lot of lives. As Xiahou rightly notes, the US is at war with al-Qa'eda so the killing is perfectly justified as an act of self-defence. Even as an extra-judicial execution it is justifiable - the world is sometimes thus. Note that bin Laden also considered himself at war - and almost certainly welcomed death to incarceration at the hands of the "infidel". All the combatants got what they wanted, and because of an extraordinarily brave decision by the president, no further innocents had to die because of bin Laden's evil.
Well done sir, very well done.
A bit off topic, but has the org even considered a "like" function like they have on facebook and other message boards?
I don't care about the photos of OBL's corpse, and I suspect the admin is correct in not releasing them now. On the other hand I demand -- DEMAND! -- to see pictures of the explosive-sniffing doggie (http://gothamist.com/2011/05/04/awww_a_war_dog_helped_take_out_osam.php) involved in the operation. I mean, seriously, an elite commando dog in an armored jacket with videocameras and an oxygen mask? This I have to see. I have a right, a god-given right to see this dog.
gaelic cowboy
05-05-2011, 18:41
Cool a real live Commando Doggie I smell a disney movie in the off
Washington lied their tongues out. Anyone surprised?
First of all, it seems like OBM did not hide behind a wife. Just propaganda to make him look cowardly.
Secondly, President Obama did not see when OBM got captured/killed because of a technical error (HP machines remember?).
As a side note, eye witness reports say OBM got captured and then assassinated, the source might of course lie. On the other hand, that source might lie, where as pentagon and washington have their pants on fire already.
Something is rotten here.
Osama's chums who were in the compound have far, far more to gain from muddying the waters by lying to the notoriously unreliable Pakistani newspapers than the Obama administration has to gain from providing a slightly misleading account of his death.
So Fox is crap and ABC, a liberal network is better? You make me laugh Lemur.
I'm glad I can provide you with amusement. You might want to look into this guy named Brian Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Ross_%28journalist%29), who is a fairly serious journalist. Note: by using the term "serious journalist," I mean that he has a factual, checkable track record for uncovering true things before other people, with little regard to who the facts help or hurt. The organization with the biggest beef against Ross? Not the Republican party. Toyota.
It's sad how critical journalism is considered "bias" by ignorant people. True bias lies in doing what does not deserve to be written, and writing what does not deserve to be read.
On a side note, it is positively heartwarming to see the same men who fill the streets demanding the death of anyone who dares to criticise law against blasphemy reduced to a solemn silence by the Bin Laden's death. We can all have good reason to be cheered by that, even if we consider finding joy in Bin Laden's death abhorrent.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-05-2011, 19:19
Bin Laden's death was the result of a "targeted killing." The validity of this concept is, itself, debated.
Bin Laden would not have been labeled "hors de combat" and hence a "protected person" under the tenets of the 4th geneva convention as there was no means by which to determine that he was unarmed.
It's sad how critical journalism is considered "bias" by ignorant people.
I don't know that it's ignorance, rather an attempt to divide the world cleanly into "us" and "them." In other words, everyone is either with my cause or against me. Seems like a very depressing perspective, and doomed to error, not to mention alienating for everyone who doesn't agree with all of your views. A very smart American conservative noted that "somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy." Modern rightwingers would do well to think on this.
In more important news, details are emerging about the counterterrorism dog hero (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/science/05dog.html?_r=2&hp), but still no photos. Pshaw!
Little is known about what may be the nation’s most courageous dog. Even its breed is the subject of great interest, although it was most likely a German shepherd or a Belgian Malinois, military sources say. [...]
The training of dogs in Navy Seal teams and other Special Operations units is shrouded in secrecy. Maj. Wes Ticer, a spokesman for United States Special Operations Command, said the dogs’ primary functions “are finding explosives and conducting searches and patrols.”
“Dogs are relied upon,” he continued, “to provide early warning for potential hazards, many times, saving the lives of the Special Operations Forces with whom they operate.”
Last year, the Seals bought four waterproof tactical vests for their dogs that featured infrared and night-vision cameras so that handlers — holding a three-inch monitor from as far as 1,000 yards away — could immediately see what the dogs were seeing. The vests, which come in coyote tan and camouflage, let handlers communicate with the dogs with a speaker, and the four together cost more than $86,000. Navy Seal teams have trained to parachute from great heights and deploy out of helicopters with dogs.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/commando-dog.jpg
In English, to "lie" means intentional deceit. And if this administration were lying, as others have pointed out, they would have stuck to their story until it was no longer tenable.
"Corrections," on the other hand, usually come quickly as new info is gained.
Which seems more likely?
You appear to be very ready to accept any negative theory about America without a great deal of critical examination. Blind spot, that. Best to check your mirrors and look out the rear window before backing up.
OBL hid behind a woman?
Somewhere in the chain someone lied. Same with the photo. Interesting is to get to know where in the chain, or rather more importantly, why.
I am not saying that President Obama sat in a throne dictating "LIE ABOUT THIS YOU GRUNTS", but somewhere in the propaganda machine these lies came to be. Do you not find where and why to be interesting?
I think some here misunderstand my position. I am honestly glad OBL was assassinated, he was not a positive influence in this world. However, I will not celebrate someones death, just as I said initially. I see him as a rabid fox, needs to be killed, but it is nothing I will celebrate. I am more interested in curing the disease, than celebrating a dead rabid fox.
I also have a hard time accepting the propaganda machine, I will call bull when I see bull. I also want to know where in the chain the bull got started, and hang these people out.
Does this make me "oh so anti american"?
I think not. I see many a great thing in and with America. I believe in the American Dream. I just wish Americans would believe more in it, and uphold it. America can be better than this, should be better than this, and I hope will be better than this. I hope that one day the USA could get the next OBL because he gets sold out at once because people at large believe more in the American dream than some ****** up demagogue - instead of America having to send covert ops teams on assassination missions.
You can call me a weed smoking university hippie (was several years ago), but I believe in a better world, and I believe America is the leader of the powers that can make this happen.
So make it happen.
The confirmation of the kill might have been slightly more difficult, but had the decision to bomb been taken, the necessity would have been to completely total the area. There will be conspiracy theorists and deniers whatever had been done. As with other attacks, DNA would have been taken at the scene of the bombing later on. A bombing mission was the safest, most reliable option (from the US point of view) but the president chose a course that minimised the loss of even more innocents.
Point two: the United States continues to bomb areas in Pakistan with drones and planes and has done for a long time. To my mind, the continuing slaughter of innocent Pakistanis in the North West, for entirely dubious reasons, is of far more concern than the execution of an evil man. Thus the worries the US may have had over bombing the compound were certainly not because of upsetting a "neutral" Pakistan.
There, I figured it out. Do I get a balloon?
Skeptics. We do not believe what the govt say, we don't make up explanations either.
Just, watch and call out the idiocy.
~Jirisys ()
Seamus Fermanagh
05-05-2011, 19:27
Much of what happened in the raid will not become common knowledge for decades, if ever. It is not in the interests of those tasked with such work to have their "sources and methods" scrutinized. This can only make such efforts more difficult in the future. As it was, this one took nearly ten years.
Somewhere in the chain someone lied.
I'm not so sure about that. This admin had a choice: Get word out immediately or try to sit on a story that was already leaking. They chose to go public with most everything they knew, probably while the team was still being debriefed (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/05/03/seal-team-members-tell-all-to-a-select-few-following-raid/). OBL was armed and then he wasn't? Why the discrepancy? Well, now it looks as though OBL had armaments in the room and may have been going for them. Hence the confusion. OBL hid behind a woman and then he didn't? Looks now as though one of his nine wives was in the room and may have gotten in the way of a shot, deliberately or not. Hence confusion. The admin could have tried to sit on the details, but they chose to go public first and correct later.
Could this be some sort of mishandled psyop? I suppose, but I don't think it would play out the way it's going. A simple narrative would have been advanced and maintained for as long as possible. This smells more like early reporting of a breaking story, plus confusion and fog of war. Should the admin have waited on some of the details? Maybe. Maybe not.
You can call me a weed smoking university hippie
I was going to try to mix things up by claiming you were a telepathic dolphin, but okay.
PanzerJaeger
05-05-2011, 20:17
I'm not so sure about that. This admin had a choice: Get word out immediately or try to sit on a story that was already leaking. They chose to go public with most everything they knew, probably while the team was still being debriefed (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/05/03/seal-team-members-tell-all-to-a-select-few-following-raid/). OBL was armed and then he wasn't? Why the discrepancy? Well, now it looks as though OBL had armaments in the room and may have been going for them. Hence the confusion. OBL hid behind a woman and then he didn't? Looks now as though one of his nine wives was in the room and may have gotten in the way of a shot, deliberately or not. Hence confusion. The admin could have tried to sit on the details, but they chose to go public first and correct later.
Exactly. Some people here do not seem to have an understanding of the nature of after action reports. Combat operations are fast-paced, chaotic, and terrifying affairs, and there is often not much time to stop and analyze what just happened. In this case, the SEALs had only 40 minutes from the start of the operation to lift off, which included the initial combat sweep, the detention of the dozens of women and children within the compound, and the subsequent hardware sweep - oh and dealing with a malfunctioning chopper. They were pretty busy, to say the least.
Comparatively, the initial reports were actually far more accurate than one would expect. The big discrepancies:
Was he armed? - Well initial reports were yes, then no, and now it appears he was standing within arms reach of an AK47 and a Makarov.
Was the wife used as a human shield? - Initial reports said yes, then no, that she lunged towards the SEALs, and now the newest details claim he shoved the woman towards the SEALs - so yes again.
Was there a firefight? - Again, yes, then no, and now it appears that at least one of the couriers did fire at the SEALs.
Those are all, in fact, incredibly minor details to someone experienced in reading military AARs. I've recently been reading a collection of American military AARs from Normandy, and it is very common to read of engagements with dozens of Tiger tanks that I know never existed. :beam:
Events, units, equipment, and a hundred other little things in AARs diverge from the accepted historical record, from enemy accounts, and even from other AARs within the same unit on every side in every war. That doesn't mean the authors are all lying, it is just the nature of AARs - which are essentially attempts to translate incredibly chaotic events that just occurred into a sanitized, fact based summaries.
Lemur is right, Shibumi, you do seem latch on to any evil you can find in America and/or its actions, even if it doesn't exist. The administration didn't need to change its initial story at all, as none of us would have been the wiser. It is to their credit that they have come out to correct the record several times.
Breaking commando dog news: Some of the SEAL dogs have titanium fangs (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/05/05/050511-news-seal-dog-1-5/). ZOMG CYBORG DEATH DOG ALLOY JAWS!
a completely inoffensive name
05-05-2011, 20:56
...
Except the justification isn't on logic, it is on principle. Are we better than them? Yes. Why are we better? Because we are civilized men that don't massacre innocent people and we go out of our way to minimize death in our conflicts that are (ideally) justified in origin.
I do not subscribe to the idea that we can treat our enemies the way they treat us and somehow the taint will not cross over onto ourselves.
We are better, and we are better exactly due to the reason you state.
However executing someone who we know deserves it, without a trial, does not make us fall to their level.
Anyway what logic do we follow by putting a man on trial when we know he has committed a crime without a shadow of doubt? I'm not talking about some criminal who might've murdered people...What OBL did was on a far larger scale.
Strike For The South
05-05-2011, 21:07
Except the justification isn't on logic, it is on principle. Are we better than them? Yes. Why are we better? Because we are civilized men that don't massacre innocent people and we go out of our way to minimize death in our conflicts that are (ideally) justified in origin.
I do not subscribe to the idea that we can treat our enemies the way they treat us and somehow the taint will not cross over onto ourselves.
But we didn't use an indescriminate attack like say flying a 747 into a tall building
We put boots on the ground and things could've gone very badly
Now of course America is not always right but nor is it always wrong. Of course being the hegemon does mean we have some of the trappings that go against an idealized version of what America should be and their are numerous examples of America being a bully. However it seems some here wish to hold us to some redicolous standard which no nation can ever hope to aspire to. Sometimes principles have to be comprimised, no one likes and it should not become a habit but that is simply the nature of things.
ajaxfetish
05-05-2011, 21:39
OBL hid behind a woman?
Somewhere in the chain someone lied. Same with the photo. Interesting is to get to know where in the chain, or rather more importantly, why.
Bear in mind that lying is not the only potential source of false information.
Ajax
Exactly. Some people here do not seem to have an understanding of the nature of after action reports. Combat operations are fast-paced, chaotic, and terrifying affairs, and there is often not much time to stop and analyze what just happened. In this case, the SEALs had only 40 minutes from the start of the operation to lift off, which included the initial combat sweep, the detention of the dozens of women and children within the compound, and the subsequent hardware sweep - oh and dealing with a malfunctioning chopper. They were pretty busy, to say the least.
Comparatively, the initial reports were actually far more accurate than one would expect. The big discrepancies:
Was he armed? - Well initial reports were yes, then no, and now it appears he was standing within arms reach of an AK47 and a Makarov.
Was the wife used as a human shield? - Initial reports said yes, then no, that she lunged towards the SEALs, and now the newest details claim he shoved the woman towards the SEALs - so yes again.
Was there a firefight? - Again, yes, then no, and now it appears that at least one of the couriers did fire at the SEALs.
Those are all, in fact, incredibly minor details to someone experienced in reading military AARs. I've recently been reading a collection of American military AARs from Normandy, and it is very common to read of engagements with dozens of Tiger tanks that I know never existed. :beam:
Events, units, equipment, and a hundred other little things in AARs diverge from the accepted historical record, from enemy accounts, and even from other AARs within the same unit on every side in every war. That doesn't mean the authors are all lying, it is just the nature of AARs - which are essentially attempts to translate incredibly chaotic events that just occurred into a sanitized, fact based summaries.
Lemur is right, Shibumi, you do seem latch on to any evil you can find in America and/or its actions, even if it doesn't exist. The administration didn't need to change its initial story at all, as none of us would have been the wiser. It is to their credit that they have come out to correct the record several times.
Some people do not seem to have an understanding of the nature of an after action report? You do?
Then you go on to explain how fast paced and action filled combat is. Been there?
With all respect, but you do come off more like a history buff expert at handling combat in a simulated environment and used to bully teenagers in historical computer games than someone who has seen combat as of lately. When you tried to draw some kind of comparison between WW2 and now when it comes to after action reports, well, it kind of gave you away.
To compare a 19 year old storming a beach with thousand others in a country he only heard about in the news as "the devils land" to DEVGRU, one of the best trained units in the world, with helmet cameras and a legion of media analyzers and spin doctors to back them up (in an operation planned for months) - is faulty to say the least.
The additional fact that you then see yourself to be able to fill some sort of role as umpire between me and Lemur is..
Lemur, I can assure you, somewhere someone put a spin on this. You would not have world media reporting false facts if not. Find the spinner, question the motives.
Lemur, I can assure you, somewhere someone put a spin on this. You would not have world media reporting false facts if not. Find the spinner, question the motives.
Although I have been guilty of it myself on far too many occasions, you might not want to get too personal. I can say this as a sinner, 'cause I know the sin. Intimately.
Anyway, sure, people are spinning this. The administration wants to trumpet its good news, and who can blame them? The rightist media is doing its best to use this event to exonerate some of the more repugnant episodes of the GWOT; the leftist media is screaming that Obama is now "unbeatable," which is nonsense. Pakistan is paying lobbyists to pour oil on the rightly roiling waves in the US Congress. Everybody's got a chisel out, looking to see what chip of this can work for them. That's natural.
I don't understand, however, your injunction to "find the spinner." The admin shared intel, and some of it got corrected, sometimes with multiple variations. Things were probably confused. It's already been reported that the SEAL who double-tapped OBL had a broken camera helmet, so the higher-ups weren't sure what was happening.
High-tech is very different from infallible. First-tier combat units are still engaged in the confusing, messy, difficult stuff called "combat."
I dunno, where do you want to go with this? Give me the telepathic dolphin's point of view.
-edit-
P.S.: Awesome wardog slideshow (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/04/war_dog?page=0,0). I am filled with canine-American pride.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/110504_wardogs4.jpg
Although I have been guilty of it myself on far too many occasions, you might not want to get too personal. I can say this as a sinner, 'cause I know the sin. Intimately.
Anyway, sure, people are spinning this. The administration wants to trumpet its good news, and who can blame them? The rightist media is doing its best to use this event to exonerate some of the more repugnant episodes of the GWOT; the leftist media is screaming that Obama is now "unbeatable," which is nonsense. Pakistan is paying lobbyists to pour oil on the rightly roiling waves in the US Congress. Everybody's got a chisel out, looking to see what chip of this can work for them. That's natural.
I don't understand, however, your injunction to "find the spinner." The admin shared intel, and some of it got corrected, sometimes with multiple variations. Things were probably confused. It's already been reported that the SEAL who double-tapped OBL had a broken camera helmet, so the higher-ups weren't sure what was happening.
High-tech is very different from infallible. First-tier combat units are still engaged in the confusing, messy, difficult stuff called "combat."
I dunno, where do you want to go with this? Give me the telepathic dolphin's point of view.
-edit-
P.S.: Awesome wardog slideshow (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/04/war_dog?page=0,0). I am filled with canine-American pride.
A) The one who shot OBM had a broken camera. Yeah, he was alone there. I can assure you that there is not a chance what so ever that a soldier alone walked into the room. That is, unless the Rambo training finally paid off.
B) Why the "find the spinner" is important? Because someone somewhere tried to outright lie to the world at large. That should not go unnoticed? Do you really believe that the world news portraying OBL as hiding behind a woman was a honest mistake?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-05-2011, 22:14
A) The one who shot OBM had a broken camera. Yeah, he was alone there. I can assure you that there is not a chance what so ever that a soldier alone walked into the room. That is, unless the Rambo training finally paid off.
B) Why the "find the spinner" is important? Because someone somewhere tried to outright lie to the world at large. That should not go unnoticed? Do you really believe that the world news portraying OBL as hiding behind a woman was a honest mistake?
Ever seen/read testimony from eye witnesses in court? The accounts are often at odds with one another and with independently measurable facts. This is especially true in confusing/charged situations. Innacuracies -- even gross ones -- cannot be assumed to be the result of purposeful evasion or prevarication.
Askthepizzaguy
05-05-2011, 22:21
You know, if I was told 9 years ago that Osama Bin Laden would be killed, but I wouldn't get to see the photos, I would have said YES, that's one hell of an acceptable compromise.
People will always find something to complain about.
ajaxfetish
05-05-2011, 22:31
Why the "find the spinner" is important? Because someone somewhere tried to outright lie to the world at large.
First false information meant LIES!
Now spin means LIES!
If you want to accuse someone of lying, could you point out the lies, rather than the things that are not necessarily lies?
Ajax
Louis VI the Fat
05-05-2011, 22:57
I'm only in this thread anymore for those awesome yankeenines. :cheerleader:
Soon, Lemur will dig up pics of the dog scuba team.
We are better, and we are better exactly due to the reason you state.
However executing someone who we know deserves it, without a trial, does not make us fall to their level.
Anyway what logic do we follow by putting a man on trial when we know he has committed a crime without a shadow of doubt? I'm not talking about some criminal who might've murdered people...What OBL did was on a far larger scale.
But that's not in any of our laws.
If he was going for a weapon, fine, but if it was perfectly possible to arrest him and he was shot anyway out of pure revenge, then I think that's wrong.
I think it's wrong for a government that is supposed to uphold certain laws to just shoot someone because they think he is guilty.
Of course that's because I don't see the whole mess as a war.
There's even more to dragging him to court than that though, for one you absolutely break the person in many cases, you finally force them to think about what they have done, the atrocities they committed.
And you can break the myth surrounding a person, you can destroy all doubts about that person's guilt anyone may have had left, in many cases the whole glory of that person will fade when they sit there with their head lowered, a criminal, not a glorious leader of some resistance movement.
The assassination and the surrounding secrecy however make for all kinds of stories, half-truths and fabrications as can be seen in this very thread.
I'd even say nobody would care a lot about the raid if we were all discussing his trial in court now.
And concerning the time it takes to settle a case in court, I wouldn't use India as an example (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_tim_req_to_enf_a_con_day-time-required-enforce-contract-days).
All in all, I'll rejoice once this terrorism madness stops but I don't see this guy's death as a big practical milestone, symbolic milestone perhaps, but that doesn't mean a whole lot as long as these decentralised structures keep killing people. :shrug:
Soon, Lemur will dig up pics of the dog scuba team.
No scuba dogs just yet, but I did find an awesome shot of a dog with an oxygen mask (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-navy-seals-secret-weapon-2011-5) parachuting from 30k feet.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/dog-parachute.jpg
PanzerJaeger
05-05-2011, 23:15
Some people do not seem to have an understanding of the nature of an after action report? You do?
Yes.
Then you go on to explain how fast paced and action filled combat is. Been there?
Nope. Were you in the room when the great conspiracy was hatched to lie about minor details of this incident for one day and then come out the very next day and correct the record?
With all respect, but you do come off more like a history buff expert at handling combat in a simulated environment and used to bully teenagers in historical computer games than someone who has seen combat as of lately. When you tried to draw some kind of comparison between WW2 and now when it comes to after action reports, well, it kind of gave you away.
To compare a 19 year old storming a beach with thousand others in a country he only heard about in the news as "the devils land" to DEVGRU, one of the best trained units in the world, with helmet cameras and a legion of media analyzers and spin doctors to back them up (in an operation planned for months) - is faulty to say the least.
Interestingly, a careful analysis of military history will lead one to the realization that the primal emotions surrounding armed conflict that lead to errors in recollection are remarkably similar throughout time and technological advancement. You'll note that my entire point was that the inconsistencies in the original story were miniscule in comparison to other AARs that I have read, which is undoubtedly due to the SEAL's experience, level of training, and the technological monitoring capabilities employed.
Your insistence that every tiny detail of the operation must have been known from day one and therefore the United States government was obviously lying is a)naive or b)agenda driven.
The additional fact that you then see yourself to be able to fill some sort of role as umpire between me and Lemur is..
Not at all. I simply agreed with Lemur and thought that I could add to his point with my own experience with AARs, as most people are not nerdy enough to spend their free time reading through thousands of them. :smart:
Louis VI the Fat
05-05-2011, 23:17
No scuba dogs just yet, but I did find an awesome shot of a dog with an oxygen mask (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-navy-seals-secret-weapon-2011-5) parachuting from 30k feet.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/dog-parachute.jpg%&^@# !! Awesome!
:unitedstates:
ajaxfetish
05-05-2011, 23:21
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war!
Ajax
Papewaio
05-05-2011, 23:38
Wet dog smells worse then spin.
As for defeating an idea, bullets are a poor cousin to a long protracted court case where the defendent gets treated well. Court cases that are factual, follow the rule of the law and give a fair trial are a very effective manner in stripping off any super villan halo.
As for the idea that unless naked the person is armed... does this become a recipricol standard? Is every Aussie nightclubber at a Bali night club now considered armed because they have shirts on? There are far reaching consequeces to even the smallest idea.
Ever seen/read testimony from eye witnesses in court? The accounts are often at odds with one another and with independently measurable facts. This is especially true in confusing/charged situations. Innacuracies -- even gross ones -- cannot be assumed to be the result of purposeful evasion or prevarication.
Ever seen a videotape/DVD? Or do you think they used 4 helicopters to fly in one guy with a broken helmet cam? How long time do you think it takes to debrief US most highly trained team, several days?
First false information meant LIES!
Now spin means LIES!
If you want to accuse someone of lying, could you point out the lies, rather than the things that are not necessarily lies?
Ajax
I thought I had pointed out the lies. I can assure you that there are more spin doctors involved in this operation than guys with guns.
As someone mentioned - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet a majority of Fox viewers years afterwards thought it had. Spin? False info soon corrected? Lies? You must understand what the spin doctors understands, the majority of the population see a headline and take it to their hearts and minds, they do not go out on the internet and search for the truth.
All the world around headlines said OBL hid behind a woman, do you think this is because a reporter misheard a member of the assassination squad? Or do you think that somewhere someone thought it would be a good idea to print this, not necessarily having honesty as top priority?
PJ, I did not say that the US government was lying - that is your guess. I simply said that somewhere in the chain between operatives on the field and headlines around the world someone had an agenda.
As to your self-acclaimed experience of AARs from what I falsely or not assume is hobby reading, I really can not be bothered.
ajaxfetish
05-06-2011, 00:23
I thought I had pointed out the lies. I can assure you that there are more spin doctors involved in this operation than guys with guns.
As someone mentioned - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet a majority of Fox viewers years afterwards thought it had. Spin? False info soon corrected? Lies? You must understand what the spin doctors understands, the majority of the population see a headline and take it to their hearts and minds, they do not go out on the internet and search for the truth.
All the world around headlines said OBL hid behind a woman, do you think this is because a reporter misheard a member of the assassination squad? Or do you think that somewhere someone thought it would be a good idea to print this, not necessarily having honesty as top priority?
I'm assuming miscommunication somewhere along the lines, possibly reinforced by the desire for a positive spin. That seems most consistent with the swift correction. I'm still not sure what lies you have identified, or who you think is doing the lying. Some amorphous 'them', apparently.
Ajax
I'm assuming miscommunication somewhere along the lines, possibly reinforced by the desire for a positive spin. That seems most consistent with the swift correction. I'm still not sure what lies you have identified, or who you think is doing the lying. Some amorphous 'them', apparently.
Ajax
I would suggest you re-read what I have written in my last posts.
What you deem apparent really has very little to do with what I have written.
Shibumi
PanzerJaeger
05-06-2011, 00:48
PJ, I did not say that the US government was lying - that is your guess. I simply said that somewhere in the chain between operatives on the field and headlines around the world someone had an agenda.
I'll refer you to your own post, #242 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135182-Osama-Bin-Laden-is-Dead&p=2053307288&viewfull=1#post2053307288).
Washington lied their tongues out. Anyone surprised?
From other posts, I can assume you're from somewhere in Scandinavia? In the English language, it is commonly understood that "Washington" implies the US government. Example (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/05/iraq.ashraf/).
Did you mean the state of Washington? The Washington DC city council? The Washington Post? George Washington? :inquisitive:
As to your self-acclaimed experience of AARs from what I falsely or not assume is hobby reading, I really can not be bothered.
My post wasn't meant for your entertainment. :shrug:
gaelic cowboy
05-06-2011, 00:49
Found a cool page all about the different countries that use War Dogs (http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History20/)
ajaxfetish
05-06-2011, 00:53
I would suggest you re-read what I have written in my last posts.
What you deem apparent really has very little to do with what I have written.
Shibumi
Or do you think that somewhere someone thought it would be a good idea to print this, not necessarily having honesty as top priority?
. . .
somewhere in the chain between operatives on the field and headlines around the world someone had an agenda.
That sounds pretty amorphous to me. Care to make it more specific?
Ajax
Greyblades
05-06-2011, 02:26
As for the idea that unless naked the person is armed... does this become a recipricol standard? Is every Aussie nightclubber at a Bali night club now considered armed because they have shirts on? There are far reaching consequeces to even the smallest idea.
I would think it would be standard only when it comes to confirmed terrorists. The US armed forces aren't that stupid.
a completely inoffensive name
05-06-2011, 02:34
...
Ever seen a videotape/DVD? Or do you think they used 4 helicopters to fly in one guy with a broken helmet cam? How long time do you think it takes to debrief US most highly trained team, several days?
Actually, it's now reported that the soldiers' video feeds were killed during the raid. Looks like the team was doing as little broadcasting as possible. Radio silence and all of that. So unless their video was stored locally, there may be very limited footage of the raid itself.
Furthermore it appears that the helicopters were some sort of stealth technology (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-dead-seals-stealth-helicopter-13530978), based on the fuselage, eyewitnesses and the rotor of the one that was trashed. Locals didn't hear much until the choppers were right on top of them. If you've been around normal helis, you know they are insanely loud.
Last interesting detail -- from when the raid began until the helis pulled out, power went out in the city and all cells died. Looks like our patriotic geeks have been up to good works. I'm beginning to appreciate what various SEALs mean when they keep talking about what a broad-based team effort this was.
Papewaio
05-06-2011, 04:32
I would think it would be standard only when it comes to confirmed terrorists. The US armed forces aren't that stupid.
Not the US forces, the ones we are fighting. Fallujah... did the mercs forget to take their shirts off, hence they were considered to being threats? Based on OBL being considered a threat if he wasn't playing for the skins team, it means that from now on anytime the enemy have one of our soliders who surrenders whilst dressed and within the same room as an unsecured firearm they are a threat and can be executed on the spot.
OBL was as a person a threat. His ideas were a much larger one. Much more gains would have made by capturing and sentencing him. Boring, unexciting, unhollywood, but damn effective.
Did OBL get what he deserved. Yeap. Was his death maximised for counter terrorist effect and wiping out his support base, nope a missed oppourtunity.
Special Forces guys are notoriously secretive, this is the best pic available of the Bin Laden assault dog.
https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2462/belgianmalinois.jpg
But that's not in any of our laws.
If he was going for a weapon, fine, but if it was perfectly possible to arrest him and he was shot anyway out of pure revenge, then I think that's wrong.
I think it's wrong for a government that is supposed to uphold certain laws to just shoot someone because they think he is guilty.
Of course that's because I don't see the whole mess as a war.
There's even more to dragging him to court than that though, for one you absolutely break the person in many cases, you finally force them to think about what they have done, the atrocities they committed.
And you can break the myth surrounding a person, you can destroy all doubts about that person's guilt anyone may have had left, in many cases the whole glory of that person will fade when they sit there with their head lowered, a criminal, not a glorious leader of some resistance movement.
The assassination and the surrounding secrecy however make for all kinds of stories, half-truths and fabrications as can be seen in this very thread.
I'd even say nobody would care a lot about the raid if we were all discussing his trial in court now.
And concerning the time it takes to settle a case in court, I wouldn't use India as an example (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_tim_req_to_enf_a_con_day-time-required-enforce-contract-days).
All in all, I'll rejoice once this terrorism madness stops but I don't see this guy's death as a big practical milestone, symbolic milestone perhaps, but that doesn't mean a whole lot as long as these decentralised structures keep killing people. :shrug:
Not pure revenge...justice. I think that is the point we differ on. The meaning of justice. While I understand that it would be more 'correct' for a country that is expected to uphold the laws, to follow them to the letter itself, but in some exceptional cases, in my opinion, going by the book is not the best way. Making a system too rigid and ultimate....any system...even the system of justice, is not the optimal way to go. There should always be some leeway that can be used in exceptional cases.
As for shaming OBL in the courts....Do you really think that would have happened? Do you really think that you can shame a fanatic about his fanaticism or dispel the aura his followers see? Capturing him alive and showing him in the courts as just another guilty criminal might have helped those who feared him get over their fear, but I doubt it would have done anything more for others.
Edit : Nearly 1500 days to 300 :laugh:
Can't say anything about that except for the fact that our system is badly :daisy: I wish the man we're holding here was held there...or even better that he'd have never been held at all, in the first place.
Just because "we know" does not mean it is instantly excusable. You could say that since "we know", then we should still have the trial since there is 0% chance that he will be found not guilty. We still went out of our way to try and hang the Nazi's who we knew were terrible people. I don't see why we should not uphold that tradition since it is what we stand for. Like I said in the post you replied to, it isn't a matter of logic it is a matter of principle. We have noble principles and they do not. That is what makes us great and them monsters. So why do we abandon those principles at the moment when they should be applied most of all? Then I misunderstood, I thought you said that what should be done should be backed by logic and not principles.... In your opinion America needs to show its nobility most of all when it is a question of a terrorist who had no honour. In my opinion displays of honour and nobility are best left to times when there is no risk of anything going sour. I don't think that the majority of Americans or the world think any less of your government now that Osama has been shot and not brought back to trial. The people who do not like and criticize it, are most probably the people who also think that Americans are as bad as terrorists because of the civilian casualties during the war...Very idealistic people..... And when idealists step down from their ivory towers onto the streets, they're apt to step straight into the gutter. I can't remember who said that.
Special Forces guys are notoriously secretive, this is the best pic available of the Bin Laden assault dog.
https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2462/belgianmalinois.jpg
Niqaab for men! Progress!
Or do you think that somewhere someone thought it would be a good idea to print this, not necessarily having honesty as top priority?
Because you are from Sweden you probably are unfamiliar with the concept free press, they can write what they want and if it turns out to be untrue they will rectify it. In the USA newspapers write newspapers not the government
a completely inoffensive name
05-06-2011, 10:24
...
I agree that most of the world will not look down on us for celebrating his death.
Kinda wrong about that, it isn't that we don't understand it mind you
@acin
I understand what you're saying. I actually did not mean one needs to wait to show one's quality until absolutely nothing can go wrong...but atleast until a less high profile situation presents itself.
Anyhow. I believe it finally comes down to the individual opinion as to where one thinks a country can be a little slack in upholding its own principles and laws, so that the system does not become too rigid.......
We don't have anything to debate I guess.
Al-Qaeda has confirmed the death of Osama Bin Laden in a posting on a jihadist website, saying his blood 'will not be wasted', reports say.
From BBC
A little canine-American pride to get your day started right:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/110504_wardogs1.jpg
Seamus Fermanagh
05-06-2011, 14:36
I'm only in this thread anymore for those awesome yankeenines. :cheerleader:
Soon, Lemur will dig up pics of the dog scuba team.
Soon it will be Neodogs and Marauder suits....
Louis VI the Fat
05-06-2011, 23:24
Amphibious dogs...parachuting dogs...dogs jumping out of helicopters....ever never knew those things existed. If I were a terrorist I'd be getting real worried right about now! :jumping:
Also: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_by_the_fbi :cool3:
https://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3401/fbio.jpg
“Amphibious dogs...parachuting dogs...dogs jumping out of helicopters....ever never knew those things existed”
Louis, you should go and have a walk in a park or “à la campagne”, and you will probably see a dog swimming in a pound, river or other piece of water.
An amphibious dog that is just a military dog that swims.
As for the jumping one, just join the Army… Or find recruitment pamphlet “engagez vous, rengagez vous, vous verrez du pays” how they used to say. Probably a picture on it.
Joke a part, I remember my trainer when I was in the process/training to go through the door saying the difficulty to jump with a dog as the animal refuse (well, instinct) to do it. Having experimented this visceral fear myself and overcome it only by the sheer power of training and a dead brain (at that moment, thanks), I can’t really blame the dog.
I would have bite the adjudant if I could…
PanzerJaeger
05-07-2011, 07:34
Apparently, bin Laden was more involved (http://www.freep.com/article/20110507/NEWS07/105070338/Al-Qaida-vows-revenge-Osama-bin-Laden-s-killing?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs) in operational planning in recent years than many thought.
Bin Laden's leadership: The wealth of information pulled from bin Laden's compound has reinforced the strong role he played in planning and directing attacks by al-Qaida and its affiliates in Yemen and Somalia, senior U.S. officials said Friday.
And the data further demonstrate to the U.S. that top al-Qaida commanders and other key insurgents are scattered throughout Pakistan, not just in the rugged border areas, and are being supported and given sanctuary by Pakistanis, a senior defense official said.
U.S. counterterrorism officials have debated how big a role bin Laden and core al-Qaida leaders were playing in the attacks launched by affiliated terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which is based in Yemen, and al-Shabab in Somalia.
Information gathered in the compound, officials said, strengthened beliefs that bin Laden was a lot more involved in directing al-Qaida personnel and operations than sometimes thought over the last decade. And it suggests bin Laden was "giving strategic direction" to al-Qaida affiliates in Somalia and Yemen, the defense official said.
Bin Laden's first priority, the official said, was his own security. But the data show that he was far more active in providing guidance and telling affiliated groups in Yemen and Somalia what they should or should not be doing.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.
So maybe this is more than just as symbolic victory? One can hope.
I see his DNA results are in: 24% cocoa, 52% coconut, 18% sugar and 6% milk.
Probably due to the bounty on his head.
LOL@(naturally)England, pro Bin Laden protests, good job labour that's how you rub diversity in the noses of the right.
Ijjits
PanzerJaeger
05-07-2011, 09:08
LOL@(naturally)England, pro Bin Laden protests, good job labour that's how you rub diversity in the noses of the right.
Ijjits
Keep it classy, Mohamed.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/article-1384353-0BF004D800000578-55_634x376.jpg
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/article-1384353-0BF004D800000578-56.jpg
Keep it classy, Mohamed.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/article-1384353-0BF004D800000578-55_634x376.jpg
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/article-1384353-0BF004D800000578-56.jpg
heh, gutmensch knows 100% sure that it's an enrichment of our culture, we can really learn from eachother and and
We can teach our kids to hate them! :idea:
We can teach our kids to hate them! :idea:
Don't need us for that, comes kinda naturally where culture has been enriched and gutmensch who lives in a 100% white neighborhood furiously demands you know that everything is 100% superduperokidoki. Nasty for the ones who aren't into all that and only care about what's for dinner
rory_20_uk
05-07-2011, 12:10
I see his DNA results are in: 24% cocoa, 52% coconut, 18% sugar and 6% milk.
Probably due to the bounty on his head.
Groan...
OK, get your coat and leave ~;)
~:smoking:
Holy :daisy:, there were about 20 guys in that picture! IMPRISON MUSLIMS NAO!
Holy :daisy:, there were about 20 guys in that picture! IMPRISON MUSLIMS NAO!
Hundreds. [REMOVED COMMENT - COUNTARACH]. Islamphiles will never accept that islam cannot be changed, multiculturism would be a flawed concept, unbearable for the leftist church.
Fragony, the amount of neologisms you create is proportional to the amount of paranoid nonsense you post here.
Islamphiles will never accept that islam cannot be changed
Wow, and yet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi) it ( [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali) has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyya) several (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Afghani) times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb).
Hundreds.
Okay, let's say there are maybe, maybe 400 people protesting like this. In, for example, the Netherlands. Musllims constitute about 5% of the population (according the CBS/Statistics Netherlands). That's around 340.000 Muslims. 400 divided by 340.000 is about 0.0012 percent of the Dutch Muslim population.
Yep, there's a problem with Islam. Obviously. Statistics are just "Islamphile" propaganda!
Louis VI the Fat
05-07-2011, 18:26
Fragony, paranoid nonsense you post here.
In, for example, the Netherlands. Musllims constitute about 5% of the population (according the CBS/Statistics Netherlands). That's around 340.000 Muslims.
I'm afraid that is the 'Fragony Blindspot'.
The Netherlands has 16.5 million inhabitants. So five percent is not at all 340.000, but nearly triple that.
What one should do in Europe, is to take the most repeated estimate of amount of Muslims, and then triple it. Percentages are systematically and reflexively pushed downwards, in a mistaken sense of duty, to show that 'things are nowhere near as bad as the populists make them out to be'.
Me, I estimate the amount of 'Muslims' in the Netherlands at fifteen percent of the population, or just over two million. About half of these are religious, so one million Muslim believers.
Yep, there's a problem with Islam. Obviously. Statistics are just "Islamphile" propaganda!Yes, there is a problem with Islam. And yes, statistics in Europe are subject to misplaced multicultural sensitivities.
PanzerJaeger
05-07-2011, 23:06
Okay, let's say there are maybe, maybe 400 people protesting like this. In, for example, the Netherlands. Musllims constitute about 5% of the population (according the CBS/Statistics Netherlands). That's around 340.000 Muslims. 400 divided by 340.000 is about 0.0012 percent of the Dutch Muslim population.
Yep, there's a problem with Islam. Obviously. Statistics are just "Islamphile" propaganda!
The number of people who can actually find the time and be bothered to show up on the streets in favor of a particular opinion or position is a tiny fraction of the number who actually support it.
Hundreds. Nah just back to sandland for these folks attending, they can herd their wives and love their goats where they came from they don't belong here. Islamphiles will never accept that islam cannot be changed, multiculturism would be a flawed concept, unbearable for the leftist church.
Hundreds my eye. There are about 30 in that group that turn up to these things. 25 if it's raining. The only people who take them seriously are people like you and the media who know they can get some racy copy out of them.
Keep it classy, Mohamed.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/article-1384353-0BF004D800000578-56.jpg
Gah. I see the fine people of Finsbury Park Mosque is out on a stroll. :laugh4:
I really wish stupid Abu Hamza's little stupid army of stupid Bin Ladenites would find another hobby. Or move to Mars.
Hundreds my eye. There are about 30 in that group that turn up to these things. 25 if it's raining. The only people who take them seriously are people like you and the media who know they can get some racy copy out of them.
100 is what is reported. And if nobody takes it seriously than why are people so cautious?
Crazed Rabbit
05-08-2011, 06:20
A quote from an article featuring that picture: (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/245148/)
However, another man who prayed at the Mosque said the group [with the signs] were a dangerous minority. He said: "They are crazy. They all benefit from UK education and UK benefits.
"They get everything for free and yet they still complain. They are not Islam, they are for Osama.
"You see the people walking past and ignoring them. Most Muslims have better things to do then this."
They'll always be idiots (see birthers in the US). Though I don't see the reason in giving them welfare.
CR
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
05-09-2011, 23:16
Fragony, the amount of neologisms you create is proportional to the amount of paranoid nonsense you post here.
Wow, and yet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi) it ( [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali) has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyya) several (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Afghani) times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb).
Okay, let's say there are maybe, maybe 400 people protesting like this. In, for example, the Netherlands. Musllims constitute about 5% of the population (according the CBS/Statistics Netherlands). That's around 340.000 Muslims. 400 divided by 340.000 is about 0.0012 percent of the Dutch Muslim population.
Yep, there's a problem with Islam. Obviously. Statistics are just "Islamphile" propaganda!
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.....
:juggle2::juggle2::juggle2::juggle2:
Since some news outlets and commentators are still pushing the narrative that we have torture, beautiful torture to thank for catching OBL, this interview with a military interrogator (http://blogs.forbes.com/oshadavidson/2011/05/05/senior-u-s-interrogator-torture-talk-puts-troops-lives-at-risk/)caught my eye:
A top United States interrogator in Afghanistan says that torture played no role in locating Osama bin Laden, and that claims to the contrary by former Bush administration officials recently is “propaganda [that] degrades our intelligence operations more than any other factor I can think of.”
Such talk also creates blowback — unintended consequences — that can be deadly, he added in an interview. “Simply the idea of our interrogators using torture or coercion recruits jihadists, facilitators, suppliers, supporters, and even suicide bombers, against us and our allies,” he said.
The man, who can’t be named for security reasons, has nearly two decades of experience as a military interrogator and Human Intelligence (HUMINT) specialist. He interrogated suspected high-value targets at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where he is currently stationed.
“Listen,” he said, “waterboarding and/or other coercive techniques did nothing to contribute to our attempts to track down UBL (Usama bin Laden). What did succeed was weeks, months and years of diligent, laborious, and dedicated work – all within the bounds of legal and ethical boundaries….No torture, no waterboarding, no coercion – nothing inhumane is considered a useful tool in our work.”
On the subject of blowback, he continued: "I cannot even count the amount of times that I personally have come face to face with detainees, who told me they were primarily motivated to do what they did, because of hearing that we committed torture. Even the rumor of torture is enough to convince an army of uneducated and illiterate, yet religiously motivated young boys to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up while killing whoever happens to be around – police, soldiers, civilians, women, or children. Torture committed by Americans in the past continues to kill Americans today." [...]
“If right-wing news outlets and partisan pundits or politicians are allowed to continue to spread their completely bogus claims that torture is effective,” he said, “then we will have corrupted the beliefs of yet another generation of new intelligence recruits….It takes months and years of ‘intervention’ to get the next generation back on the track of quality work, specialization, and intelligence dominance – not quick and easy fixes. This is not an hour-long TV show.”
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.....
Only because the nature of the goal the Provos were working for (I.e. a united Ireland) was not best served by an intensive campaign of terror against the civilian population in Great Britain - the IRA always saw themselves as an army fighting a war against the British Army and the Loyalist Paras. That they essentially became a a mafia with rocket launchers that made life hell for the Irishmen they claimed to be fighting for is neither here nor there, as the nature of the conflicts are completely different.
There are lots of examples of Christians murdering populations en masse in the modern world - the Srebenica Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre), which happened in your lifetime, is one, where over 8,000 men and boys were executed by Christians over the course of about two weeks.
Oh yeah that. It really stands out doesn't it
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.....
Ah, and how many civilians killed due to retaliatory action in Iraq (which, incidentally, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden)?
Tellos Athenaios
05-10-2011, 18:09
More civilians were killed in the USA in 2001 in car accidents than by terrorist attacks, too. :shrug: Number of people killed when someone started sending Anthrax by mail in 2001 was about zero but it still ended up being significant 'cause you know it made people go hysteric faced with the prospect of flour or washing powder.
It's not how many people died in 9/11 that made the attack significant: it is that the USA/world felt it so keenly. By contrast the 7-7 bombers had much less lasting effect.
Louis VI the Fat
05-10-2011, 22:18
Ah, and how many civilians killed due to retaliatory action in Iraq (which, incidentally, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden)?Zero. There was no retaliatory attack to kill Muslims in Iraq.
(Save for some individuals, for example that guy from Wasilla who has just been sentenced by an American court to 24 years imprisonment for the murder of three Afghanis)
Iaqi deaths since 2003 are better compared to how many would've died under the brutal Saddam regime.
Zero. There was no retaliatory attack to kill Muslims in Iraq.
No? Weren't Iraq's supposed ties with al-Qaeda used to justify the invasion at least partially?
Iaqi deaths since 2003 are better compared to how many would've died under the brutal Saddam regime.
Right, the same "brutal Saddam regime" that we thought was totally cool with murdering Kurds and Armenians and Iranians as long as they were at war with Iran, right? Right?
Zero. There was no retaliatory attack to kill Muslims in Iraq.
(Save for some individuals, for example that guy from Wasilla who has just been sentenced by an American court to 24 years imprisonment for the murder of three Afghanis)
Iaqi deaths since 2003 are better compared to how many would've died under the brutal Saddam regime.
A majority of republican voters thought 911 was linked to Iraq even years after all facts were out. Eventhough it was clear the US were there to get those weapons of mass destruction.
So, two thumbs up.
Louis VI the Fat
05-10-2011, 23:03
Right, the same "brutal Saddam regime" that we thought was totally cool with murdering Kurds and Armenians and Iranians as long as they were at war with Iran, right? Right?Now therein lies the rub.
When 'we' did business with Saddam, we were accused of supporting him. When we boycotted him, we were accused of starving a million Iraqi children to death.
When we did not attack Saddam, we were accused of not aiding the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims of Saddam. When we did attack him, we were accused of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's in a retaliatory attack.
Can't win this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
A majority of republican voters thought 911 was linked to Iraq even years after all facts were out. Eventhough it was clear the US were there to get those weapons of mass destruction.
So, two thumbs up. They also believed that toppling a dictator was the right thing, the 'American' thing, to do. Silly Americans and their willingness to shed their blood to spread democracy. :no:
Sadly many noble intentions were mobilised to a cause which was never free from more cynical motives.
Still, however that may be, Iraq was not a retaliatory attack. The retaliatory attack was last week in Abbottabad.
Now therein lies the rub.
When 'we' did business with Saddam, we were accused of supporting him. When we boycotted him, we were accused of starving a million Iraqi children to death.
When we did not attack Saddam, we were accused of not aiding the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims of Saddam. When we did attack him, we were accused of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's in a retaliatory attack.
Can't win this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
You could have stopped selling him weapons and advanced technical hard/software - while letting food and medicine fly freely.
Then you could have supported the populations uprising á la Egypt.
I guess a country is only as intelligent as its president.
You could have stopped selling him weapons and advanced technical hard/software - while letting food and medicine fly freely.
We. We're in this together, people!
Now let's all sit in a circle and sing kumbaya.
Strike For The South
05-10-2011, 23:15
You could have stopped selling him weapons and advanced technical hard/software - while letting food and medicine fly freely.
Then you could have supported the populations uprising á la Egypt.
I guess a country is only as intelligent as its president.
MY GOD
SOMEONE TELL THE PRESS WE HAVE AN IDEA!
Louis VI the Fat
05-10-2011, 23:17
You could have stopped selling him weapons and advanced technical hard/software - while letting food and medicine fly freely.
Then you could have supported the populations uprising á la Egypt.
I guess a country is only as intelligent as its president.America is not the only country on the planet. What's Europe ever done for the people of Iraq? Arms deals and oil contracts accompanied by hypocrite talk about the yanks, that's European policy.
Swedish prosecutor Nils-Erik Schultz has told Swedish Television that this week he will finish his investigation of accusations that Scania, the Swedish truck manufacturer, paid bribes to Iraqi officials during the Saddam Hussein era – despite UN sanctions.
Asked to comment on reports that Scania’s CEO Leif Östling could face corruption charges, the head of communications at Scania, Per-Åke Danielsson says he will wait until charges are officially made or completely dropped. He adds that Scania is looking forward to the results of the investigation.
It is previously known that many companies did pay bribes to Iraqi officials back in early 2000 when the country was still subject to UN sanctions. Some estimates made show that as much as 1.6 billion dollars have been paid to officials in Saddam Hussein’s government.
So far two Swedish companies have been implicated and two executives at Volvo have already been charged with violating the sanctions and paying bribes. The investigation into Scania’s actions has dragged on for more than three years.
Sweden does not grant the rest of the world the same treatment as it gives Swedes. Godwin's second law says that wherever there is a brutal dictatorship, there is a Swedish firm selling him whatever he requires:
Sweden is usually in the top five of the world's least corrupt nations when rated by Transparency International in its corruption perception index, but but Swedish companies do not receive the same positive rating.
The Swedish government has also been criticized by Transparency International for not doing enough to monitor Swedish companies abroad to make sure they follow both Swedish and international law.
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=4150383
SFTS Calm down. Breathe in. Come back when you have something constructive to write. You are seriously starting to bore me.
Louis, Scania is a Swedish company. You are of course aware of the difference between companies and nations?
Scanias dirty business was brought to light by Swedish media by the way. And they got a lot of flak heading their way for it.
Do not get me wrong, Sweden has done a lot of things I do not agree with. I am no full supporter of our politics (like the jets in Libya or the troops in Afghanistan).
However, when it comes to Iraq your comparison falters a lot. We even tried to tell the US that there were absolutely no WMDs in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix).
Louis VI the Fat
05-11-2011, 00:03
Louis, Scania is a Swedish company. You are of course aware of the difference between companies and nations?I am fully aware of the difference. and so is the Swedish state, which hides behind the companies which it supports doing business with the dictators of the world long after everybody else but the Swiss have refused to do business anymore.
Sweden is usually in the top five of the world's least corrupt nations when rated by Transparency International in its corruption perception index, but but Swedish companies do not receive the same positive rating.
The Swedish government has also been criticized by Transparency International for not doing enough to monitor Swedish companies abroad to make sure they follow both Swedish and international law.
link in previous post
Speaking of Libya, Gaddafi too has read the book 'Dictatorship for Dummies', chapter one: 'Avoid sanctions by doing business in Sweden. Buy your boycotted goods in Sweden. Hide you assets safely in Sweden.'
The Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi has has his assets of over skr10 billion frozen in Sweden and it is speculated that that he might even be more given that the EU's economic sanctions was recently extended to cover more companies and individuals likely associated with him and his regime. The nagging question now is how did Gaddafi built up assets in this supposedly stringent country.
The Swedish Financial Services Authority, (Finansinspektionen, FI) would not comment on what has been frozen. “Where they are and what types of assets it is, we can not comment, "said Jonathan Holst, Acting Head of Press at the FI to Dagens Nyheter and refers to banking secrecy.
But if one was to follow the EU's regulations, which declared that all legal entities, ie individuals, governments and companies assets linked to Gaddafi should be frozen. This shows a picture in which bank’s mutual funds, private equity firms and similar have hidden Gaddafi wealth starched.
But here in Sweden, even the Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said that he was surprised at the amount of wealth the dictator and his regime had invested in Sweden.
http://www.scancomark.se/Gaddafi-hide-billions-in-Sweden-and-assets-in-denmark-to-be-sold.html
gaelic cowboy
05-11-2011, 00:08
Louis, Scania is a Swedish company. You are of course aware of the difference between companies and nations?
Then the USA can make the same excuse the next time they get caught out by a dictatorship cos the weapons are from private companies just like in Sweden
Louis, first of all, you will never ever see me defend Sweden when Sweden fouled up.
However, you quote the Swedish state propaganda channel trashing a banking company. What is your point? That the Swedish government dealt with a situation? You seem to over reach your ability trying to find Swedish flaws here.
If you want help, I can give you some examples of when Sweden really fouled up, to help your case against - what exactly?
Edit:
Then the USA can make the same excuse the next time they get caught out by a dictatorship cos the weapons are from private companies just like in Sweden
Of course. As long as the US itself hang them out and deal with it.
The Swedish state however has not sent assassination squads, if you remember what the thread is about. The US has.
This video contains one swear word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfF1vkMQ0h0&feature=player_embedded
I didn't think anyone could make great comedy out of OBL's death. I was wrong. Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says (http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html). The real comedy genius is in the comments:
"Why are we still giving aid to Tatooine? They probably knew of Kenobi's existence the whole time and even helped him! That whole planet is just a big hive of scum and villainy."
"I love how the liberal rag GET keeps referring our Defense Star as the 'Death Star'. Take that propaganda back to Courescant, Nerfherder!!!"
"Let's be CLEAR this is not a VADER victory but a victory of our boys in white, not to mention the leadership of Lord Tyrannus the Count Dooku who started the manhunt in the first place."
"Can anybody explain to me why in some publications his name is spelled 'Obi-Wan' and in others it is spelled 'Ubi-Wan'?"
"And now that Vader has done what Emperor Palpatine couldn't do in 7 years, the imperialists are trying to give old wrinkleface all the credit."
#winning (sorry was waiting for an excuse to say that) :laugh4:
If only Lucas could write as well...
Louis VI the Fat
05-12-2011, 16:46
Excellent timing.
I've got a congress in a few days. About Jediphobia. Me and my buddy are going to board a domestic planetary flight on Coruscant, dressed up in full Jedi gear to see what will happen.
Excellent timing.
I've got a congress in a few days. About Jediphobia. Me and my buddy are going to board a domestic planetary flight on Coruscant, dressed up in full Jedi gear to see what will happen.
A big black man with a huge purple sabre is going to tell you he's your daddy
Louis VI the Fat
05-12-2011, 18:14
A big black man with a huge purple sabre is going to tell you he's your daddyHuh?? I think you're mistaken? Strike's not Black. :huh:
McCain (2000 version, apparently) responds on torture. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html) Key text:
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
Oh boy (?)
Pornography found in bin Laden hideout: officials (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-binladen-porn-idUSTRE74C4RK20110513)
A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.
The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.
Would be hilarious if true.
Kralizec
05-13-2011, 21:41
MCain (2000 version, apparently)
I think I recall McCain speaking out against torture during the 2008 campaign...same debate I think where Romney said he'd "double Guantanamo".
a completely inoffensive name
05-14-2011, 08:18
Huh?? I think you're mistaken? Strike's not Black. :huh:
LEARN YOUR STAR WARS CHARACTERS AHHHHHHHH!
HE IS TALKING ABOUT MACE WINDU THE JEDI MASTER WHO WAS ON THE JEDI COUNCIL AND CONFRONTED LORD SIDIOUS AT THE TURNING POINT OF EPISODE 3: REVENGE OF THE SITH.
HE WAS PORTRAYED BY SAMUEL L JACKSON IN THE MOVIE AND HAD A CHARACTERISTIC PURPLE LIGHTSABER.
DONT YOU KNOW ANYTHING?!?!
Episode 1 2 & 3 aren't Star Wars. Period.
Oh and time for Gregroshi to show up because Bin Laden's porn stash has been found. I'll kick of
Suzie's sala-fisting
The Beard and the Burkafill
The Kite whippener
a completely inoffensive name
05-14-2011, 09:38
Episode 1 2 & 3 aren't Star Wars. Period.
I agree. But lucas has tainted the canon with his midichlorians. What are ya gonna do about it?
Banquo's Ghost
05-14-2011, 13:54
I agree. But lucas has tainted the canon with his midichlorians. What are ya gonna do about it?
Close the thread, probably. Unless there is some evidence in the next few posts that there remains anything useful or constructive in reference to the original topic.
:inquisitive:
Well they really found his porn stash but the rest was a joke, these movies don't exist.
LOL@beards even if it isn't true it's still funny
I have questions:
If Osama is a terrorist in war against USA, the used of SEAL is legal.
But If Osama was a criminal how the USA will justify the used of SEAL and not Police Officers?
In brief, how the US will justify the use of force, the method and means used?
Just for curiosity…
Louis VI the Fat
05-14-2011, 17:10
Meanwhile in Pakistan:
Pakistan bombings kill 80 to avenge bin Laden
(AP) SHABQADAR, Pakistan - Two suicide bombers attacked paramilitary police recruits heading home after months of training in this country's northwest, killing 80 people Friday in what the Pakistani Taliban called vengeance for the U.S. slaying of Osama bin Laden.
The militants said they hit the recruits out of anger at Pakistan's armed forces for failing to stop the U.S. incursion that killed bin Laden, and promised more attacks would follow.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/501364/main20062471.shtml
Meanwhile in Yankistan:
Disney Trademarks 'SEAL TEAM 6'
Published : Friday, 13 May 2011, 6:33 PM EDT
(NewsCore) - The Walt Disney Co. has trademarked "SEAL TEAM 6," the name of the elite special operations forces team that killed Osama bin Laden, Mediabistro.com reported Friday.
Disney's trademark applications for "SEAL TEAM 6" cover clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and "entertainment and education services," according to the report.
The entertainment giant completed the application on May 3 -- only two days after news broke that the secretive military unit killed bin Laden.
The US Naval Special Warfare Development Group, otherwise known as "DEVGRU" and "SEAL Team Six" is one of a small number of secretive highly-skilled counterterrorism units.
In after-hours trading Friday, Disney shares were down 0.3 percent at $41.40.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/entertainment/disney-trademarks-seal-team-6-dpgonc-20110513-kh_13196708
Capitalism for the win! :laugh4: :cheerleader:
But If Osama was a criminal how the USA will justify the used of SEAL and not Police Officers?
In brief, how the US will justify the use of force, the method and means used?
Interesting question. OBL claimed to be at war on the US, but it's debatable whether or not individuals (or small groups) have the power to declare war in any meaningful sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war).
You could argue that the killing of 3000+ US civilians constituted a legit declaration of formal hostilities. But war? Hmmm.
I think this is a fuzzy area that has a great deal to do with the confusion we sometimes have over the War on Terror. Problems:
War on <concept> never works out well, e.g., War on Poverty, War on Crime, War on Drugs, etc.
Wars involve nations. Crimes involve individuals or groups that fall well short of "nation." How do we treat, prosecute and conduct a stateless conflict that exceeds our normal definition of "crime"? Ideas? Anyone?
Treating Al Qaeda as a subject of war has led to predictable excesses (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/enhanced+interrogation+torture+those+given+small+dose/4605954/story.html), but treating them as a criminal group would create equally predictable problems (although invoking RICO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act) on them would be amusing)
If a criminal is protected by due process, and an enemy soldier by the Geneva Conventions, what legal framework do we use for a stateless, borderless semi-war? We'll get back to you (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme_court_rules_in_hamdans_favor/) on that one.
So your question about the appropriate use of force is legit, but not isolated or easy to answer.
On the other hand, I am reminded of one of my favorite scenes from The Lion In Winter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063227/). A king asks another king, "By what right is that land yours?" and the other king responds, "By the right of 'it's got my troops all over it.' " (Edit: I see I was paraphrasing, but I was close (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW7IRXc9Lt0).)
Sometimes empiricism trumps law and reason. We killed OBL because we could, and any other course of action would have been extremely problematic.
To be clear, I am not questioning the killing. I am just curious, as there is a mixture of “criminal” (justice is served) and the use of military units.
For a French, it is not a problem but the “Anglo-Saxon” are allegedly more legalist than the French.
We would have added one Gendarme in the squad (the Gendarmerie are Militaries and Law Enforcers) and job done.
So, how you guys will resolve this problem, if problem there is.
Crazed Rabbit
05-14-2011, 19:15
The US has targeted and killed individual soldiers fighting against it (Admiral Yamamoto, for one). I see no reason how terrorist leaders could be given greater legal protection than actual soldiers, or greater protection than the Taliban we fight in Afghanistan.
It doesn't seem hard to justify at all.
@Fragony;
Seal Team Sex – Forced Entry
The Men Who Do More Than Stare at Goats
Sadly, I can't claim I came up with either of those.
CR
“The US has targeted and killed individual soldiers fighting against it (Admiral Yamamoto, for one).” Soldiers are killing soldier, not a hint of problem. However in the case of OBL, he was not a soldier, and the Geneva Conventions unfortunately didn’t apply.
To kill unarmed soldiers is not prohibited, what is illegal is to kill soldiers who surrendered. To stop soldiers to reach their weapons or to escape is absolutely allowed and even encourage.
In this case we have the use of Soldiers to kill an Outlaw.
So it is in theory 2 different fields.
As I said, the French created the Gendarmerie to fill this gap, so, as in the Hostage Crisis in Djibouti, the snipers are Foreign Legionnaires under the command of a Gendarme representing the law. Simple.
I just ask the question because a debate on LBC about difference between killing and assassination and nobody gave a real answer in the case of OBL.
Banquo's Ghost
05-15-2011, 08:36
“The US has targeted and killed individual soldiers fighting against it (Admiral Yamamoto, for one).” Soldiers are killing soldier, not a hint of problem. However in the case of OBL, he was not a soldier, and the Geneva Conventions unfortunately didn’t apply.
To kill unarmed soldiers is not prohibited, what is illegal is to kill soldiers who surrendered. To stop soldiers to reach their weapons or to escape is absolutely allowed and even encourage.
In this case we have the use of Soldiers to kill an Outlaw.
So it is in theory 2 different fields.
As I said, the French created the Gendarmerie to fill this gap, so, as in the Hostage Crisis in Djibouti, the snipers are Foreign Legionnaires under the command of a Gendarme representing the law. Simple.
I just ask the question because a debate on LBC about difference between killing and assassination and nobody gave a real answer in the case of OBL.
Whilst it is a complex question, I haven't seen many human rights lawyers seriously question the legality of the killing.
First of all, it has long been argued that the Geneva Conventions do apply, since the US declared war - on a concept primarily, but certainly on al-Qa'eda. This made bin Laden (as the acknowledged commander) a legitimate target. This is why the sophistry applied to detainees at Guantanamo is trying to hide an illegal act by terming them "enemy combatants" - a definition with no legal basis saved the convoluted minds of politicians.
Therefore, the attack on bin Laden's compound was both an act of war, and an act of self-defence. Since he had initiated action on American soil, and the US had clearly stated that they would strike at him wherever he might hide - thus putting harbouring countries on notice - he remained a target. Documents found (as well as his own pronouncements) show he continued to wage war against the US - ensuring the killing remained self-defence in law. Had he immediately and unambiguously surrendered he would have been afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions as a POW. The president said they would have accepted such a surrender (but clearly would have not followed the Conventions for him having denied them to the foot-soldiers). I have no illusions that bin Laden would have wanted to be taken alive - this was not his mind-set. Therefore I have no problem believing that he made no attempt to surrender immediately and thus was shot in accordance with the law governing military action. No gendarmes needed as this was not a police action.
To my mind, the confusion arises because the US claims protection of the law in this situation (rightly) whilst playing fast and loose with the law at Guantanamo and on torture and on drone attacks on civilians in sovereign territories and rendition and ... a long litany of highly dubious practice. In this case, they acted in accordance with international law proving that doing so is perfectly effective.
Well, good enough except that if your “declare war" on drugs you don't sent the SEAL to kill even the Drug Lord.
Well, good enough except that if your “declare war" on drugs you don't sent the SEAL to kill even the Drug Lord.
Actually, in one of the better-documented episodes of covert operations, our Special Forces were deeply involved in getting Pablo Escobar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Force#Operation_Heavy_Shadow). So not SEALs, not exactly, but much the same sort of group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_Tier_System) was involved.
Hosakawa Tito
05-15-2011, 23:08
Aimal Kasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_shootings_at_CIA_Headquarters). This will make the hand wringers feel better.
"Actually, in one of the better-documented episodes of covert operations, our Special Forces were deeply involved in getting Pablo Escobar"
Curse Tom Clancy:laugh4:
Curse Tom Clancy:laugh4:
Oh, right, Harrison Ford and all of that. Completely forgot.
Nah, it was reporter Mark Bowden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Pablo) who chased down the real story after seeing a picture of Escobar's corpse in a special forces officer's room, and hearing how "we got him." There's still plenty of debate about how deeply our Tier One operators were involved in that, but there's no doubt we used military assets to help kill the drug lord.
Anyway, the only reason I dragged out the corpse of Pablo Escobar was to demonstrate that we have used special forces to kill non-military targets in the past. Non-war person of interest. However you want to frame it. So the assassination of OBL is not some new and unexplored territory; we've done this sort of thing in the past and we'll do it again.
Moreover, killing Pablo didn't accomplish much, since the economics of cocaine production are so compelling that another cartel just moved in and took over. You can't fight that kind of cash with bullets. OBL's death, on the other hand, may be a tipping point. Al Qaeda exists as an idea and a framework. OBL was the charismatic figurehead. The Arab Spring (http://www.thenation.com/article/158991/arab-spring) has put lie to Al Qaeda's founding principles, and the death of Ronald McDonald may spell an end of the burger franchise.
Louis VI the Fat
06-26-2011, 20:47
*** Thread resurrection ***
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/pakistan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) — The cellphone of Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s trusted courier, which was recovered in the raid that killed both men in Pakistan last month, contained contacts to a militant group that is a longtime asset of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, senior American officials who have been briefed on the findings say. The discovery indicates that Bin Laden used the group, Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen, as part of his support network inside the country, the officials and others said. But it also raised tantalizing questions about whether the group and others like it helped shelter and support Bin Laden on behalf of Pakistan’s spy agency, given that it had mentored Harakat and allowed it to operate in Pakistan for at least 20 years, the officials and analysts said.
In tracing the calls on the cellphone, American analysts have determined that Harakat commanders had called Pakistani intelligence officials, the senior American officials said. One said they had met. The officials added that the contacts were not necessarily about Bin Laden and his protection and that there was no “smoking gun” showing that Pakistan’s spy agency had protected Bin Laden.
But the cellphone numbers provide one of the most intriguing leads yet in the hunt for the answer to an urgent and vexing question for Washington: How was it that Bin Laden was able to live comfortably for years in Abbottabad, a town dominated by the Pakistani military and only a three-hour drive from Islamabad, the capital?
“It’s a serious lead,” said one American official, who has been briefed in broad terms on the cellphone analysis. “It’s an avenue we’re investigating.”
The revelation also provides a potentially critical piece of the puzzle about Bin Laden’s secret odyssey after he slipped away from American forces in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan nearly 10 years ago. It may help answer how and why Bin Laden or his protectors chose Abbottabad, where he was killed in a raid (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-is-killed.html) by a Navy Seals team on May 2.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/world/asia/24pakistan.html
New information possibly reveals close relations between Bin Laden and the Pakistani secret service. Apart from OBL living in city which is to the Pakistani army / secret service what the Vatican is to Catholicism.
Was the Bush doctrine right? It may not be failed states, but hostile states which comprise the most acute terror threat to America. Not Somalia, but indeed Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Pakistan. Not poverty creates terrorism, but wealth, the limitless funds of organs of state.
What if Iraq had never been attacked in 2003? Would Iraq have developed in the direction of Pakistan? Supporting teroorist attacks on American interests? Would the rest of the region have followed suit?
Perhaps it was the line in the sand that has convinced other unfriendly regimes not to go certain places.
Is that surprising to you, strictly hunch-technically speaking of course.
Was the Bush doctrine right?
Bush had a doctrine? Damn, you are making me feel like Sarah Palin.
Not poverty creates terrorism, but wealth, the limitless funds of organs of state.
I think there's a lot of truth in this. In a lot of the more successful asymmetrical conflicts, the David that bests Goliath has his own giant passing him rocks and other support behind the scenes. I remember seeing some stats for Communist aid to N. Vietnam that were quite comparable to US aid to the South. But it seems to me that Al Qaeda was - and is - more or less privately financed.
What if Iraq had never been attacked in 2003? Would Iraq have developed in the direction of Pakistan? Supporting teroorist attacks on American interests? Would the rest of the region have followed suit?
Perhaps it was the line in the sand that has convinced other unfriendly regimes not to go certain places.
It convinced Libya, although that is beside the point now. But it emboldened and strengthened Iran and its proxies. I thought the Bush doctrine was about pre-emptive strikes, but it is too much of a carte blanche. You need a clear and present danger - Iraq in 2003 just wasn't.
What if Iraq had never been attacked in 2003? Would Iraq have developed in the direction of Pakistan? Supporting teroorist attacks on American interests? Would the rest of the region have followed suit?
Preposterous, not a chance. Look at the Ba'ath party, if there's one thing they would probably hate more than supposed colonialism, it's militant sectarianism.
Vladimir
06-27-2011, 16:09
Preposterous, not a chance. Look at the Ba'ath party, if there's one thing they would probably hate more than supposed colonialism, it's militant sectarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein
Next in line before the invasion. I don't know when Wiki's supposed falling out occurred but I thought it was the other way around.
Next in line before the invasion. I don't know when Wiki's supposed falling out occurred but I thought it was the other way around.
Okay, so you just posted a wikipedia link, no further explanation given about his character.
Let's take a look at Uday Hussein then: A sociopath, murdered at least three people, plotted to assassinate at least one other, and probably many many more. Also seems to be something of a kleptomaniac. So what do we have here, a sociopathic maniac with severe OCD.
But in God's name, what's the link with Islamism or militant sectarianism or even al-Qaeda? Maybe there's something that I've not been noticing here, but I fail to see what you're aiming at here? Has critical evaluation of the situation in Iraq declined to such a degree that now we're willing to just link a sociopathic member of the Hussein family to Islamism without there being any basis for that?
Willing to link the Ba'ath regime to Islamist groups professes something of a lack of basic knowledge of the current political climate in the Middle East, and frankly, it's not going to work for me.
Latest claim: torture didn't nail OBL, bribery did (http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2011/08/bin-laden-turned-in-by-informant-courier-was-cover-story.html). Honey, flies, vinegar, etcetera.
Sources in the intelligence community tell me that after years of trying and one bureaucratically insane near-miss in Yemen, the US government killed OBL because a Pakistani intelligence officer came forward to collect the approximately $25 million reward from the State Department's Rewards for Justice program.
The informant was a walk-in.
The ISI officer came forward to claim the substantial reward and to broker US citizenship for his family. My sources tell me that the informant claimed that the Saudis were paying off the Pakistani military and intelligence (ISI) to essentially shelter and keep bin Laden under house arrest in Abbottabad, a city with such a high concentration of military that I'm told there's no equivalent in the US.
The CIA and friends then set about proving that OBL was indeed there. And they did.
Tellos Athenaios
08-08-2011, 20:16
Seems plausible enough: $25M + USA citizenship is rather more attractive than being part of a regime perched precariously on a certain balance of fear in a volatile economic climate as a member of what will be seen as one of the prime tools of fear in the regime. Though, vinegar catches more: http://xkcd.com/357/
Centurion1
08-08-2011, 20:17
Latest claim: torture didn't nail OBL, bribery did (http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2011/08/bin-laden-turned-in-by-informant-courier-was-cover-story.html). Honey, flies, vinegar, etcetera.
Sources in the intelligence community tell me that after years of trying and one bureaucratically insane near-miss in Yemen, the US government killed OBL because a Pakistani intelligence officer came forward to collect the approximately $25 million reward from the State Department's Rewards for Justice program.
The informant was a walk-in.
The ISI officer came forward to claim the substantial reward and to broker US citizenship for his family. My sources tell me that the informant claimed that the Saudis were paying off the Pakistani military and intelligence (ISI) to essentially shelter and keep bin Laden under house arrest in Abbottabad, a city with such a high concentration of military that I'm told there's no equivalent in the US.
The CIA and friends then set about proving that OBL was indeed there. And they did.
I :daisy: hate Pakistan. I hate how much aid we give them. I hate how these :daisy: little poor as crap states feel powerful enough to :daisy: with us and rub our noses in things. I do not want to be Pakistan's friend. WTH would we ever support India's enemy when India is looking to become a superpower in the next 30 years.
johnhughthom
08-08-2011, 20:24
WTH would we ever support India's enemy when India is looking to become a superpower in the next 30 years.
I think you've answered your own question. :wink:
Vladimir
08-09-2011, 00:41
Latest claim: torture didn't nail OBL, bribery did (http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2011/08/bin-laden-turned-in-by-informant-courier-was-cover-story.html). Honey, flies, vinegar, etcetera.
People always say that as if you have to choose between the two.
Papewaio
08-09-2011, 03:37
I :daisy: hate Pakistan. I hate how much aid we give them. I hate how these :daisy: little poor as crap states feel powerful enough to :daisy: with us and rub our noses in things. I do not want to be Pakistan's friend. WTH would we ever support India's enemy when India is looking to become a superpower in the next 30 years.
Did you read who was funding Pakistan not to kill him?
Same country that members of the ruling class may have funded 9/11... mind you those investigations were called off.
Same country where the majority of the attackers came from
Guess which country didn't get invaded, but it's greatest enemy did instead.
Guess which country funds more of the extremist schools then any other, guess which relatively secular country got invaded instead.
Guess which country Obama came from.
Guess which country has some of the strongest ties in personnel, money and attitude with the Pakistan Intelligence (Possibly more then their own elected officials).
Guess which country is going to glide past and not get touched.
Teflon has nothing on it. They have the money, the means, the motivation, the schools being trained for it the links to the Taliban, to Al Qaeda, to the school system that creates the terrorists in Malaysia and Indonesia, but they will not be scrutinised out of sheer well terror.
Tellos Athenaios
08-09-2011, 03:43
Guess which country Obama came from.
Is this a trick question?
Greyblades
08-09-2011, 03:52
Did you read who was funding Pakistan not to kill him?
And the sad thing is that with the economy as it is the USA couldnt do anything anyway without making things worse for themselves even if they wanted to do something.
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 04:35
Did you read who was funding Pakistan not to kill him?
Same country that members of the ruling class may have funded 9/11... mind you those investigations were called off.
Same country where the majority of the attackers came from
Guess which country didn't get invaded, but it's greatest enemy did instead.
Guess which country funds more of the extremist schools then any other, guess which relatively secular country got invaded instead.
Guess which country Obama came from.
Guess which country has some of the strongest ties in personnel, money and attitude with the Pakistan Intelligence (Possibly more then their own elected officials).
Guess which country is going to glide past and not get touched.
Teflon has nothing on it. They have the money, the means, the motivation, the schools being trained for it the links to the Taliban, to Al Qaeda, to the school system that creates the terrorists in Malaysia and Indonesia, but they will not be scrutinised out of sheer well terror.
Oh don't get me wrong. I hate Saudi Arabia with a passion. I actually loathe it even more than the Pakistanis.
Papewaio
08-09-2011, 04:35
It is a trick question in some ways.
A). Most of the answers are speculative.
B). Not all the answers are the same.
C). The real answer is about individuals and like minded groups not nation states
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 04:53
It is a trick question in some ways.
A). Most of the answers are speculative.
B). Not all the answers are the same.
C). The real answer is about individuals and like minded groups not nation states
I ignored the guesses and looked at the same.
otherwise it goes
SA
SA
Iran
SA
America
Depends on who your talking too actually
SA
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.