Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[HairyHeretic]

So, the men, women and children killed deserved it because entirely different people who happened to belong to the same country did terrible things somewhere else.

I wonder where I may have heard that brand of logic before?

[Jude]

You're shifting the discussion in an attempt to move away from your original point which is what I object to, not your after-thought nuances.  The bottom line is, there is no credible evidence that WP was used against civilians or that indiscriminate killing actually occurred.  There is zero reason to believe that the 800 death toll had anything to do with an intentional civilian massacre, and plenty of reasons to believe otherwise.  Over 10,000 US troops were involved in the Second Battle of Fallujah, so even if one person who was actually there had described the battle the way he did, it still wouldn't be enough to characterize the entire conflict.

I'm surprised you can't see why it's ridiculously inflammatory and insulting that you've drawn a comparison between 9/11 and unintentional civilian casualties during Fallujah.

By the way, if we take the number of US troops to be 10000 (it's estimated between that and 15k) and the civilian death toll to be 800, and assume that every civilian killed was killed by a US soldier and not the insurgents (which is extremely unlikely to be true), then assume that each soldier who killed a civilian only shot 1 civilian, you get 8% of US soldiers who killed a civilian.  Describing that as a massacre is nothing short of delusional.

[Zakharra]

Well, there's some posts above that pretty much say "if we can hit someone we don't like in the head and they don't manage to hit back at once then we're entitled to do so, normally we're nice guys but everybody hates us", Zakharra for instance. I don't think that's helpful in understanding where terrorism - or wars of liberation - comes from, and that's why I replied. As someone put it, "my eight year old son understands that the heroes of the first Star Wars trilogy are terrorists": what they're doing could be described (on the tv channels of the baddies) as terrorism.

  /sigh   You're missing my point. I'm not saying 'if we can hit someone we don't like in the head and they don't manage to hit back at once then we're entitled to do so, normally we're nice guys but everybody hates us'.  What I am saying is that BECAUSE we are the only superpower left and have the largest military and economy, anything we do or do not do is commented on.

We catch a ration of crap when we do not help in a situation, we catch crap when we do. We're the first nation people come crying to when a disaster happens because we have the military that can respond the quickest.  Every action the US takes is analyzed and watched closely.

With our enemies, anything we do, they use for their propoganda. If we attack, we're evil and warmongers, if we do not attack, we're evil and weak and they can attack with impunity. I believe bin Laden used that phrasing as justificaton for his movement's war on us.

I say we are good people because of the tactics we use first. We do NOT intentionally target civilians. They do. The aim of most of their attacks is massive civilian casualties, to weaken the will of our public. why? Because they know it will work. Vietnam was not lost militarily, but lost through a weakening of the public support. The military was hampered by rules and politicians stepping into the chain of command and not letting the military fight.  I said it before, to win a war, you need to fight it at the enemy's level, more or less. That our enemy are terrorists makes this a little more difficult.

[Pointless Digression]

So, the men, women and children killed deserved it because entirely different people who happened to belong to the same country did terrible things somewhere else.

I wonder where I may have heard that brand of logic before?

Well, I did mention a historical event that lead Vekseid to quote, "Kill them all, God will know His own..."

[HairyHeretic]

I'm familiar with the Cathar heresy, though not in great detail.

[Pointless Digression]

I just meant that what Vekseid quoted was apt in light of your question.

[HairyHeretic]

My question needs rhetorical tags :)

[Pointless Digression]

When will the rhetorical questions end? [/rhetorical]

[Hellion000]

So, the men, women and children killed deserved it because entirely different people who happened to belong to the same country did terrible things somewhere else.

I wonder where I may have heard that brand of logic before?

By the power invested in me by the Intarwebz I'm invoking Godwin's Law, and declaring this thread over.

[Pointless Digression]

One does not invoke Godwin on the Gods.

Oh wait...that's "Why does God need a starship?" I always get those mixed up.

[RubySlippers]

I noticed they are not releasing phots, won't let anyone interview any of the Seal Team and seem to be so hush hush did they really kill him?

Seems to me without a body, independent evaluation of his body and evidence there are going to be questions from some in the public.

[gaggedLouise]

I noticed they are not releasing phots, won't let anyone interview any of the Seal Team and seem to be so hush hush did they really kill him?

Seems to me without a body, independent evaluation of his body and evidence there are going to be questions from some in the public.

Considering how many people have thought Elvis Presley never died, and how some still do, they would be well advised to release some solid evidence.

[Oniya]

There are photos of Elvis in the coffin, and you can find the text of the coroner's report online.  Those who want a death to be 'faked' will believe that no matter what.

[Callie Del Noire]

I noticed they are not releasing phots, won't let anyone interview any of the Seal Team and seem to be so hush hush did they really kill him?

Seems to me without a body, independent evaluation of his body and evidence there are going to be questions from some in the public.

I don't understand why they don't show a body, I understand why the boys of Seal Team VI aren't being shown. The less seen of the event the less that the enemy can use in some way.

Besides, given some of the guns the SEALS use there might not been much of a face LEFT after they shot him in the left eye.

[TheLovelyMaid]

Those who want a death to be 'faked' will believe that no matter what.

I agree.

It's been DNA confirmed, right? That's all I need to know. There could be as many people offended by the display of his post-mortem face as there are people who want visual proof to confirm his demise.  Conspiracy theorists would only claim that they're doctored anyway.

To quote the POTUS, 'Bin Laden, is NOT a trophy.'

[RubySlippers]

Considering how many people have thought Elvis Presley never died, and how some still do, they would be well advised to release some solid evidence.

There is a difference get a man that looks like him on film, saying he is not dead and you have a myth to fight for a rally around and all this mystery is not helping stop that. I would like to point out they should have videoed the attack, him standing there with his wife and others known to Al Queda ands the world then get shot in the torso. And I get get DNA evidence but why the hell did they not have samples done by Interpol and offered to other parties for independent testing? It would be hard to deny if Interpol said its him, the Swiss, Sweden, Saudi Arabia and other nations agreed wouldn't it? And why not show the pictures and have inteviews with the Seal Team by members of the Intelligence Commitee and others with authority if they won't even give them photos and interviews than its fishy these men and women have high security clearances and authority over such actions. Its all looking like a conspiracy and that is enough for me to question it.

Now if Osama is seen I would think it might be him now also sadly.

[Callie Del Noire]

For one thing, the team would be marked for death. Forever. There are folks out there who would do ANYTHING to avenge OBL. Video taping the entire raid? Not smart gives away tactics and possible sources in the region. As for the DNA and after photos, I don't see a reason not to.

[drivingmissdaisy]

Photos are not going to show solid "proof" of anything. There have already been numerous fakes, old photos, etc. Photos can be edited and cropped and you can't even tell the difference. Showing a dead body to the public is sadistic and only asking to enrage those already anti-american thoughts and feelings. I rarely support Obama, but think his decisions to both honor the Muslim religion by disposing of the body in their culture's acceptable way and not showing photos are the respectful and morally right things to do.

[Zakharra]

  I think they should show a photo. Other nations, including in the Middle East, they routinely show bodies. Stuff like that isn't hidden. As for stirring up anto-american hatred, sop what? They already hate us. Showing the picture of the corpse isn't going to make that any worse. They know bin Laden is dead. Showing his picture isn't going to make that hatred any stronger.

[Vekseid]

  I think they should show a photo. Other nations, including in the Middle East, they routinely show bodies. Stuff like that isn't hidden. As for stirring up anto-american hatred, sop what? They already hate us. Showing the picture of the corpse isn't going to make that any worse. They know bin Laden is dead. Showing his picture isn't going to make that hatred any stronger.

I heard his head was blown open. I'm not sure that would help in any meaningful fashion.

[Zakharra]

 If he was shot above the eye, his face is intact. By releasing it, t's showing he is dead. Of course there will always be those who doubt and look for reasons to doubt the truth. In this case I am 100% sure binLaden is dead. To be caught in a lie like this would ruin the President.  Not that he is helping his image by changing the small details of the story so quickly. >_<   

[Inerrant Lust]

The body may not have been buried in its' entirety.

I wouldn't consider it unusual to have kept a hair or blood sample on record. And as it has been said before, better to just close this chapter in history than to parade around a corpse and drag out all these negative emotions.

(Also. A 5.56 round to the eye WILL do a lot of damage. TvTropes knows.)

As an American and a member of the armed forces, I was disgusted to see people getting drunk and celebrating a death. That's not justice, it's bloody revenge. We should have had a moment of silence for the victims of 9/11 and felt relief that we made such a step forward into doing them right.

As for American soldiers massacring civillians?
The majority of civillian deaths in any conflict downrange nowadays comes from the insurgency. A bomb goes off, maybe 20 people die. Only one of them was an American. That's pretty routine.

Plus, the Insurgency likes to situate themselves among women and children.

Until you've had to deal with life-threateningly frustrating ROE and an enemy disguised as civillians (also remember a good portion of the male population carry an AK over there for personal safety), I don't want to hear any crap about how reckless the soldiers are being.

If you want a clean war, fine... We'll send in ground troops instead of bombing the whole building. And then you'll complain because the war is too costly and fatal.

"In "Counterinsurgency’s Impossible Trilemma," Dr. Lorenzo Zambernardi, an Italian academic now working in the United States, clarifies the tradeoffs involved in counterinsurgency operations.[20] He argues that counterinsurgency involves three main goals, but in real practice a counterinsurgent needs to choose two goals out of three. Relying on economic theory, this is what Zambernardi labels the "impossible trilemma" of counterinsurgency. Specifically, the impossible trilemma suggests that it is impossible to simultaneously achieve: 1) force protection, 2) distinction between enemy combatants and noncombatants, and 3) the physical elimination of insurgents.

According to Zambernardi, in pursuing any two of these three goals, a state must forgo some portion of the third objective. In particular, a state can protect its armed forces while destroying insurgents, but only by indiscriminately killing civilians as the Ottomans, Italians, and Nazis did in the Balkans, Libya, and Eastern Europe. It can choose to protect civilians along with its own armed forces instead, avoiding so-called collateral damage, but only by abandoning the objective of destroying the insurgents. Finally, a state can discriminate between combatants and noncombatants while killing insurgents, but only by increasing the risks for its own troops, as the United States and ISAF did in Afghanistan under the leadership of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. So a country must choose two out of three goals and develop a strategy that can successfully accomplish them, while sacrificing the third objective.

Zambernardi’s theory posits that to protect populations, which is necessary to defeat insurgencies, and to physically destroy an insurgency, the counterinsurgent’s military forces must be sacrificed, risking the loss of domestic political support."

Can we just agree to disagree?

U.S. policy is to distinguish enemy and civillians and the physical or political elimination of insurgents. This leaves the troops more vulnerable. More U.S. deaths cause loss of public support, which means the entire operation is more likely to fail. (The Tet Offensive was a spectacular military failure on the Vietnamese' part... but it shattered the morale of the home front, leading to U.S. withdrawl.)

Some would rather we protect our soldiers and eliminate the insurgents, often at the civillian's expense. It'll get the job done, possibly... but it's not very ethical. It also runs the risk of creating more insurgents with our ham-fisted approach. In such a case, you gotta kill 'em all. They can't avenge their fathers if the sons are dead. Not an effective tactic unless you go all out with it.

My opinion? The public needs to stop being so ignorant about the conduct of war and our capabilities. The assumption is that we always have positive ID of our enemy. That accidents don't happen. That the insurgency isn't the most underhanded and evil group of bastards on the planet, sacrificing their own children and wives for the cause and literally forcing us to kill innocents. That the insurgency isn't deliberately misleading some of us into believing a family reunion is really a terrorist cell get-together so we conduct operations against innocents.

I hate censorship... but I think sometimes the public is better off not knowing what they can't understand.

[Will]

  I think they should show a photo. Other nations, including in the Middle East, they routinely show bodies. Stuff like that isn't hidden. As for stirring up anto-american hatred, sop what? They already hate us. Showing the picture of the corpse isn't going to make that any worse. They know bin Laden is dead. Showing his picture isn't going to make that hatred any stronger.

Yes, they hate us already, and will hate us no matter what.  But there are other people in the world who don't hate us, or are just uncertain about us, and how we conduct ourselves internationally will very much affect which way their views shift.  Not everyone just hates us because we're on top, so to speak, so there's no legitimate reason to just act however suits us and give the rest of the world the finger.  We aren't trying to convince Al Qaeda that we're cool; of course that's not going to happen.  That's a naive expectation.  However, it's not just "us" versus "them."  There are plenty of people in the middle that we have to be mindful of.  Taking the moral high ground is important in our dealings with them, not with Al Qaeda.

[Zakharra]

 Why should those people be bothered by a picture of a corpse then? As I understand it, the US is one of the few nations that doesn't show dead people on the news. Which is damned odd when you concider how many corpses you see in the movies and on TV shows...   If showing the picture makes them turn against us, they weren't worth having as an ally or nuetral friend.

[Oniya]

Frankly, I don't see what harm there is in not showing the picture.  The people who aren't going to believe a picture - still won't believe a picture.  The people who want proof - there's DNA evidence, which can't be explained away by a waxwork.  The ones that are saying 'pics or GTFO!!1!!eleventyone!' are looking for something to hold up as evidence, either of a Photoshopped conspiracy or of what 'atrocities' we committed.  It's a balancing act, and I'd rather make the extra effort to be respectful of another country's burial practices and leave the nay-sayers with nothing more than whispers.