Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[Remiel]

As reported on CNN.

Better late than never, I suppose.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well it did come down to the fact he'd be somewhere like that.. surprised he had family around him..but not too much so.

[MagicalPen]

He does have a HUGE family, and there are millions of people in the Mid-East who would give their lives for him.

I would love to hear details on the operation that finally got him - its taken 10 years afterall - and I am sure there will be a book in the next year or two about it.

[Destiny Ascension]

Book then a movie, starring... who?

US Special Operations Forces FOR THE WIN!

[BCdan]

That's what he gets for subscribing to the playstation network using his real address. 

/totally stole that joke

[RubySlippers]

Good, now Obama should order all troops in Afghanistan and Iraq home asap we got the bastard and 9/11 has been avenged.

I think we all need to thank the Navy Seals for their skill at taking the fraker out with extreme efficiency and the brave men and women fighting in the lines its time we get them out lets say in six months, minus a stronger embassy presence marine contingent for security.

[TheLovelyMaid]

US Special Operations Forces FOR THE WIN!

+1

For all the people he has harmed over the decades, justice has been done. Can our troops come home now?

[Callie Del Noire]

Good, now Obama should order all troops in Afghanistan and Iraq home asap we got the bastard and 9/11 has been avenged.

I think we all need to thank the Navy Seals for their skill at taking the fraker out with extreme efficiency and the brave men and women fighting in the lines its time we get them out lets say in six months, minus a stronger embassy presence marine contingent for security.

Oh yeah.. just leave everything in the clutch and unfinished. That is what we did with the 'victory' in Afghanistan rather than helping them rebuild their country.. What came out of that? The Taliban and El Queada.

I'm sorry, retreating to our own country and putting our metaphorical heads in the sand won't do anything but give his supporters an opening to regain control of Afghanistan. Isolationism has never done the US any good, only gave the folks we eventually faced time to build up strength.

Once started we have to finish. Do I think Iraq was ill thought out? Yes, I personally think we should have finished Afghanistan before looking elsewhere, but once we started rebuilding the country we have to give them the support they need. Otherwise you might was well give Iran (and possibly Turkey and Syria) a map of the country and tell them to cut off the chunks they want. Fix it now.. or twenty years from now our children will be back in the dirt all over again.

[gaggedLouise]

Book then a movie, starring... who?

US Special Operations Forces FOR THE WIN!

Always said Joaquin Phoenix is the man who should play bin Laden in a film. He'd be excellent.

Totally okay with having bin Laden dead, but make no mistake we're sure to see some assaults in retaliation to this.

[Brandon]

When I heard the news I was at a bar having a few drinks with one of my girlfriends and some friends. I was pretty happy about it and the owner asked everyone to quiet down so we could watch CNN's report of it. I wish they could have taken him alive but I knew from day one it wouldnt happen.

Since he has been taken out its finally time to bring our soldiers home and they all deserve a hero's welcome

Make no mistake though, this whole thing with terrorist cells is far from over.

[Neroon]

Indeed not.  However, removing the head from a snake goes a very long way towards killing it.  There is always the risk of al Quaeda putting the martyr's mantle on bin Laden but I honestly believe that this is the turning point.  From this point on, provided we don't thing "Job Done" and cease the efforts to root out and destroy every element of this dreadful organisation, the end of al Quaeda is in sight.  It might take years more and probably decades but the struggle to end this threat will eventually be successful.

I have to think of parallels with Red Army Faction.  These terrorists created havoc and used a similar cell system to that we think al Quaeda uses.  It was after the leaders were neutralised that the Faction slowly decayed, with the number of atrocities committed by them decreasing over the subsequent decades.  The factor that eventually was crucial to the Faction's demise was the end of state sponsorship for it by the DDR.  After German reunification, it was revealed that the East German government harboured the Faction's members and even helped them evade capture by providing them with fake identities.  Reunification cut this source of succour for the faction off and combining that with a lack of leadership, the end of the group's activities was inevitable.

Consequently, though we have removed bin Laden as the head of al Queada, the west must not use this as an excuse for giving up the difficult struggle in Afghanistan.  The Taliban have provided al Quaeda with support similar to that provided by the DDR to the Red Army Faction and unless there is some end to their disagreements with the West, al Quaeda will take much much longer to wither and die.  It may be that the only solution is a military one, though, frankly, I doubt it, given the fact that Iran is providing the Taliban support.  The combination of firm military resolve, a dramatic improvement in the standard of living in Western Europe over that in the countries of the Warsaw Pact and significant diplomacy between the USA and the USSR led to the ultimate end of the cold war and with it the Red Army Faction.

As yet, I see no efforts made to engage politically with Iran or the Taliban.  Without bin Laden pushing, there is a hope now that, once the dust has settled, such diplomacy can begin.  The struggle must continue, with military resolve providing the backing to diplomatic overtures.

[Pointless Digression]

Good, now Obama should order all troops in Afghanistan and Iraq home asap we got the bastard and 9/11 has been avenged.

What the blazes does bin Laden have to do with Iraq? That's like saying, "Now that bin Laden is dead, we should totally get our troops out of South Korea ASAP."

As reported on CNN.

Better late than never, I suppose.

This is more or less exactly what I thought when I first heard the news. After all, this comes almost ten years after September 11th.

But I also think this is not the best option I could have imagined for when the day came that we found him. The best option I pictured involved us capturing him, putting him on trial, and allowing him to spend the rest of his life in a Supermax facility in the desert somewhere. As it is, like Neroon said, he's seen as a martyr.

Better a martyr than alive and active. But better a symbol of the triumph of a civilized justice system than a martyr, in my opinion.

But less good /= bad, so I'll just wrap this up with some admiration for the men and women of special forces who planned and executed this operation, and breathe a sigh of relief that he's not still out there.

[MagicalPen]

Quite interesting that they buried him at Sea. No body, no grave, no shrine.

I am still shocked AQ and the likes haven't responded to his death - at least to the Media. Like HH said, it seems the whole organization is in shock as their leader is now gone.

The more facts that are released the more amazing the whole thing seems.

[Remiel]

But less good /= bad, so I'll just wrap this up with some admiration for the men and women of special forces who planned and executed this operation, and breathe a sigh of relief that he's not still out there.

And the CIA as well for developing leads, keeping those leads secret for years, and finally bringing the plan into fruition.  Supposedly there were 0 American casualties on the raid.  Who knows if that's actually true, but if it is, that speaks to the efficiency of the military and intelligence organisations.

Hopefully this will finally convince those who still insist that President Obama is a Muslim, or at least an Al-Queda, sympathizer--or at least silence them.

[Oniya]

Quite interesting that they buried him at Sea. No body, no grave, no shrine.

According to Muslim religious law (much like Jewish law), the body must be buried within 24 hours.  There weren't a whole lot of options.

[Cheka Man]

Pity they didn't cremate him after putting pork fat on him.

[Callie Del Noire]

Pity they didn't cremate him after putting pork fat on him.

As much as I'd like to do something like that myself, I think they did right by honoring tradition and keeping to the 'high ground' in the treatment of the body.

Though I wish they had taken him alive, the rest of his natural life in a 5 by 5 cell in a prison in the middle of no-where rotting has an appeal to it.

[Revolverman]

Pity they didn't cremate him after putting pork fat on him.

Desecrating the body would have done nothing but prove the point to his followers.

[Oniya]

Desecrating the body would have done nothing but prove the point to his followers.

It also would have pissed off those Muslims who have sided with us and against him.

[Tambit]

What we should be worried about now is retaliation.  He may have been the Ace of Spades, but he was not the only card in the deck!  Sure, we'e taken him out, but others will follow.  Others will lead.  And others will likely kill in his memory.

[Cheka Man]

How does one kill an idea?

[Revolverman]

What we should be worried about now is retaliation.  He may have been the Ace of Spades, but he was not the only card in the deck!  Sure, we'e taken him out, but others will follow.  Others will lead.  And others will likely kill in his memory.

I doubt it. Al-Quada is a shell of what it was, and the US seems to be good at catching Terrorists before they act now (at least in the US)

Edit: Even if something happens in Pakistan, India is sitting with a huge army just waiting in case Islamic terrorists make a move for Islamabad.

[Pointless Digression]

How does one kill an idea?

The cynic in me wants to say, "By killing everyone who holds that idea."

After all, today speaks of Catharism? Manichaeism seems to be a dead movement in the history of ideas.

Ideas die when people forget.

[Inerrant Lust]

Better late than never, I suppose.

Oh GOD! Osama Bin Lichdom!

It was all a ruse! When he rises from the sea atop Cthulhu, he will be more powerful than we can ever imagine!

[HairyHeretic]

Silence! I Kill you!

[Hellion000]

Aaaand Hairy wins the intarwebz with his "I'll make you laugh until you can't type" moment.

[Remiel]

Oh my god, that's right! Jeff Dunham's stock just went way up!

[Zeitgeist]

While the lion's share of congratulations goes to the military special forces and the intelligence communities, I think Obama deserves credit for staying the course and keeping the pressure on Al Qaeda. That said, closing Gitmo may have denied us a crucial piece of intelligence that led us to the compound in Pakistan.

[Vekseid]

The cynic in me wants to say, "By killing everyone who holds that idea."

After all, today speaks of Catharism? Manichaeism seems to be a dead movement in the history of ideas.

Ideas die when people forget.

"Kill them all, the Lord will know his own." is still remembered today as "Kill them all and let God sort them out." Gnosticism in general has a long history of persecution, beginning with giving too much respect to women. Considering that Gnosticism holds some of Christianity's most compelling mythology, it's certainly spoken of.

While the lion's share of congratulations goes to the military special forces and the intelligence communities, I think Obama deserves credit for staying the course and keeping the pressure on Al Qaeda. That said, closing Gitmo may have denied us a crucial piece of intelligence that led us to the compound in Pakistan.

Gitmo is still open. What are you talking about?

[Branwen]

I'm not unhappy that a truly evil person has been removed from the Earth, but I can find little to celebrate about it when so many remain in harm's way, both soldier and civilian, and so many are dead and injured.  I just hope that this will allow us to begin planning on leaving the two wars and wiping some of the jingoistic filth we've smeared on the Constitution off.

[drivingmissdaisy]

I'm not unhappy that a truly evil person has been removed from the Earth, but I can find little to celebrate about it when so many remain in harm's way, both soldier and civilian, and so many are dead and injured.  I just hope that this will allow us to begin planning on leaving the two wars and wiping some of the jingoistic filth we've smeared on the Constitution off.

I also have a difficult time celebrating the death of a human, no matter how evil. Though, I do find great relief in cutting off the head of a monster who's bankroll has paid for thousands of deaths and the closure now offered to those that lost loved ones on 9/11 and beyond.

I can appreciate your graphic depiction of "smearing the Constitution" but the analogy doesn't really make sense to me. Who's not upholding the Constitution? If you mean to say that you don't appreciate the war then that's an opinion to have but I'm not sure I understand why that makes our Constitution dirty or somehow corrupt?

That being said...it was a great victory and great efforts of our servicemen and their leaders to close in on Osama. The mission accomplished (pull out the old banner) should be appreciated as a complete product of teamwork across party lines. America, fuck yeah.

[itsbeenfun2000]

I feel they buried him at sea so there would be no tomb or shrine where his body is located

[Vekseid]

I feel they buried him at sea so there would be no tomb or shrine where his body is located

Per Islamic tradition the body must be buried within 24 hours, and there was probably concern over the body getting desecrated.

I can appreciate your graphic depiction of "smearing the Constitution" but the analogy doesn't really make sense to me. Who's not upholding the Constitution? If you mean to say that you don't appreciate the war then that's an opinion to have but I'm not sure I understand why that makes our Constitution dirty or somehow corrupt?

The suspension of habeas corpus and violation of privacy (warrentless wiretaps, the overly intrusive TSA scans) comes to mind.

[Brandon]

I feel they buried him at sea so there would be no tomb or shrine where his body is located

I certainly hope not. The greatest respect America can show to Muslims in this situation is to give him a proper burial according to their traditions. As I understand those traditions, that is to bury him within a day of his death and with him facing Mecca.

If the proper last rights werent given then I think all muslms including American ones would have every right to be angry. Its no different then burning a copy of the Quran IMO. We have to take the high road to show that this was about paying back the individual, not making an enemy of a faith.

[Bloody Rose]

I am personally glad that this freak is dead. He caused so many misery and pain to so many families with the wtc attack that he should deserve to be tortured then killed. I lost a friend to the attacks of the world trade center and I am glad that finally he is avenged.

[Brandon]

I keep hearing "Justice has been served" and "America has been avenged". However I think has it? He is dead, and he can never harm us again by direct planning or action but that seems the easy way. With his death I wonder if we have been robbed of the right to judge him and make him face punishment for his crimes. He escaped our punishments which to me means that Justice escaped us. Instead of being judged and punished by us he will be judged and punished by Allah (I hope I spelled that right)

Perhaps its just me but even though I was sure we would never take him alive I feel like we've been cheated

[Zakharra]

I certainly hope not. The greatest respect America can show to Muslims in this situation is to give him a proper burial according to their traditions. As I understand those traditions, that is to bury him within a day of his death and with him facing Mecca.

If the proper last rights werent given then I think all muslms including American ones would have every right to be angry. Its no different then burning a copy of the Quran IMO. We have to take the high road to show that this was about paying back the individual, not making an enemy of a faith.

Concidering what these muslim terrorists have done to us and our troops, they're damned lucky we didn't dismember his body, stuff it in the corpse of a pig and kick it off the side of the boat head down facing south.  If ANY muslim gets mad at us for how we disposed of him, they are, bluntly, fucking morons.  None of the enemies we are fighting show any respect for  our dead when they kill him. Beheading was common in Iraq I believe, and I remember the burned bodies of soldiers being dragged behind vehicals and then hung and celebrated. 

If we were to pay back the individual, then I'd be for treating his corpse just like his people have treated ours.

[Callie Del Noire]

Concidering what these muslim terrorists have done to us and our troops, they're damned lucky we didn't dismember his body, stuff it in the corpse of a pig and kick it off the side of the boat head down facing south.  If ANY muslim gets mad at us for how we disposed of him, they are, bluntly, fucking morons.  None of the enemies we are fighting show any respect for  our dead when they kill him. Beheading was common in Iraq I believe, and I remember the burned bodies of soldiers being dragged behind vehicals and then hung and celebrated. 

If we were to pay back the individual, then I'd be for treating his corpse just like his people have treated ours.

Sorry Zak, just because the other side is stuck in the 10th century's rules of war doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level. I was saddened by stories of abuse in the prisons a few years ago and I applaud the military for their professional and smart treatment of the body. That dog don't hunt no more. That is good enough for me. 

[PearlRuby]

Hollywood already plan on cashing in on his death, naturally.

The death of Osama bin Laden could mean a rewrite for a film about the al-Qaida leader from Oscar winner Kathryn Bigelow.

A film about the hunt for Osama bin Laden could be on its way to the big screen, according to reports.

The Oscar-winning director of The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow, has been planning a movie about the US special forces team that killed the al-Qaida leader for some time, Variety (paywall) says. The film was thought to focus on a previous unsuccessful attempt to get Bin Laden, but as the project – tentatively titled Kill Bin Laden – is still in development, screenwriter Mark Boal could easily include details of the 40-minute firefight at a compound in Pakistan which led to Bin Laden's death.

Variety cites sources close to Boal, a former journalist who used his experiences embedded with a bomb squad in Iraq to inform his script for The Hurt Locker, suggesting that the screenplay for the project will now be rewritten.

"For him, the timing of Bin Laden's death could hardly be better: had it come much later, making changes would have been a scramble, but it's still late enough to maximise the movie's timeliness," Variety says.

Rival industry magazine the Hollywood Reporter says its sources believe Bigelow and Boal will spend this week deciding their next move, and speculates they could lose interest in the wake of the likely announcement of a rash of rival projects. The 9/11 bombings became the subject of a number of films, including Oliver Stone's World Trade Center and Paul Greengrass's United 93, about the heroism of passengers who prevented a fourth plane from hitting the terrorists' mark in 2001.

Bigelow, who has declined to comment on Kill Bin Laden in the wake of the terrorist leader's death, became the first female film-maker to win the best director Oscar for her work on The Hurt Locker in 2010. Focusing on a US bomb disposal unit working in Iraq, the low-budget film – shot mainly guerrilla style on location in the Middle East – beat its rival Avatar, the 3D box-office behemoth by Bigelow's former husband James Cameron. It won a total of six Oscars, including the best original screenplay award for Boal.

Original source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-film-kathryn-bigelow

[Inerrant Lust]

STRATFOR knows what's up. The analysis.

"STRATFOR has been cited by media such as CNN, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and the BBC as an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues."

[drivingmissdaisy]

Per Islamic tradition the body must be buried within 24 hours, and there was probably concern over the body getting desecrated.

The suspension of habeas corpus and violation of privacy (warrentless wiretaps, the overly intrusive TSA scans) comes to mind.

If you're referring to holding and interrogating enemy combatants (such as was discussed in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), ultimately the key that lead to the successful mission that located and killed Osama, I'm not sure that I would call that such a bad thing. Especially when you can be essentially denied due process in this country for something as simple as going to Bankruptcy court or any other Agency that the Government contests are administrative and therefore your Right to a Jury is outrightly denied. Am I fan of the patriot act? Or the sheer emotional reaction that occurred after 9/11? Absolutely not. But I think that the Judicial Branch of our Government consistently serves its role in corrective interpretation of legislative acts.

And in regards to TSA scans...who cares. Myself and I'm sure many others have thought of the lack of safety involved with getting on an airplane even after 9/11 and all of the ways someone could get around inadequate TSA procedures. Do I think it could be an infringement on 4th amendment search and seizure? Possibly. But we give up that right when you get pulled over and give a police officer rights to search you when they ask and you respond yes (which is really the only response given statistically). I would strip down naked in front of the crowd (but maybe I'm just a voyeur) if it meant I wasn't getting on a plane with weapons and crazies.

[Branwen]

I can appreciate your graphic depiction of "smearing the Constitution" but the analogy doesn't really make sense to me. Who's not upholding the Constitution?

Hi, Drivingmissdaisy.  Thank you for commenting and asking for clarification.  I did a poor job of expressing my point and appreciate the feedback.

Since 9/11, numerous abrogations have been made to every American's Constitutionally guaranteed rights, most notable infringements of the 4th Amendment.  Warrantless wiretaps, denial of Freedom of Information Act requests under the broad and unimpeachable umbrella of national security, a No Fly list with no recourse to discover how and why you were placed on it and might be removed, the entire Patriot Act, TSA 'security', American citizens held at Gitmo and so on.  That's not my America, that's not my Constitution.  By allowing our government to take away our rights in the name of national security and by allowing them to start two wars for highly specious reasons shames me as an American.

[Hellion000]

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." - B. Franklin.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - B. Franklin.

Having quoted the above, might I recommend that we put aside ideological and political differences for a few days and revel in the fact that we're Americans?

[Pointless Digression]

Having quoted the above, might I recommend that we put aside ideological and political differences for a few days and revel in the fact that we're Americans?

Isn't reveling in being American the chief past-time of Americans?

[Zakharra]

Sorry Zak, just because the other side is stuck in the 10th century's rules of war doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level. I was saddened by stories of abuse in the prisons a few years ago and I applaud the military for their professional and smart treatment of the body. That dog don't hunt no more. That is good enough for me.

War is hell. It's violent, brutal and very very messy. It should be treated that way. The limitations we place upon it is solely because we, as the nations, can do so. Those we fight, especially those who are from movements and ideas like Al'Queda) are a LOT harder to fight than a nation. With enemy nations, you can have rules of war, exchange of prisoners and such.

You cannot have that with an ideology. They NEVER ever follow any 'civilized' rules. All wars are normally fought with the tactics of the enemy. If we do not adopt some of their tactics, we lose.  This is one place having a media has hurt the ability to make and fight a war.  Seeing the images of death and destruction sickens many people because they are seeing the brutal and violent face of war for the first time in the comforts of their homes.  If that stops people from wanting to fight, it puts us at a severe disadvantage since the enemy has no problem causing such death and will attempt to capitalize on it to weaken the will of the enemy public. 

The hiding amongst civilians, human shields and such. It works against the US public. Some among us whine and moan because civilians were killed and say we shouldn't be fighting and killng innocents. To those people (through out the world) I say 'Grow up"  We minimize as many casualites as we can. That is  ALL we can do, but there will be casualties. Unless we give up and refuse to fight for fear of killing innocent civilians.  In which case we might as well slit out own throat.

Another part of the problem is that we might punish the individual, but the body of his movement and supporters will take it personally. Which does make it difficult to deal with them.  I would not have minded if they'd  treated his corpse like they have ours, but they will be unable to separate the individual punishment from themselves.  As it's happening now.  Promises of revenge are already being  shouted.

[Aiden]

Pretty cool story, not to far off-topic.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/121107609.html

Guy vows not to shave after 9/11 attacks until Usama is dead, before and after pictures.

[Zakharra]

 Wow.. That was a long beard.

[Cheka Man]

As long as Bin Laden's.

[MagicalPen]

War is hell. It's violent, brutal and very very messy. It should be treated that way. The limitations we place upon it is solely because we, as the nations, can do so. Those we fight, especially those who are from movements and ideas like Al'Queda) are a LOT harder to fight than a nation. With enemy nations, you can have rules of war, exchange of prisoners and such.

You cannot have that with an ideology. They NEVER ever follow any 'civilized' rules. All wars are normally fought with the tactics of the enemy. If we do not adopt some of their tactics, we lose.  This is one place having a media has hurt the ability to make and fight a war.  Seeing the images of death and destruction sickens many people because they are seeing the brutal and violent face of war for the first time in the comforts of their homes.  If that stops people from wanting to fight, it puts us at a severe disadvantage since the enemy has no problem causing such death and will attempt to capitalize on it to weaken the will of the enemy public. 

The hiding amongst civilians, human shields and such. It works against the US public. Some among us whine and moan because civilians were killed and say we shouldn't be fighting and killng innocents. To those people (through out the world) I say 'Grow up"  We minimize as many casualites as we can. That is  ALL we can do, but there will be casualties. Unless we give up and refuse to fight for fear of killing innocent civilians.  In which case we might as well slit out own throat.

Another part of the problem is that we might punish the individual, but the body of his movement and supporters will take it personally. Which does make it difficult to deal with them.  I would not have minded if they'd  treated his corpse like they have ours, but they will be unable to separate the individual punishment from themselves.  As it's happening now.  Promises of revenge are already being  shouted.

I've always found it ironic that we have rules and laws governing how we can kill people during a War. 'XX round is too big, so we can only use X round, to kill people'. Its just seems a little...moronic? If the object is to kill the other side, I am not quire sure how limiting the size of the round you are using accomplishes that. Dead is dead isn't it?

The problem with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that its not a traditional war. There aren't two sides lining up, fighting each other. The US Military is clearly marked, but the enemy is not. They look like Civilians and hide amongst the Civilians. They know they are vastly overpowered by the US, so to limit their own losses they use the Civilians as a Shield. That is why so many Civilians are being killed. Its very hard, in the heat of the moment, to identify a target when everyone looks the same - aka no uniform.

Or cases where the Military does exist, but their HQ is in the basement of a Hospital...if you want to take the HQ out, you have to take the Hospital out as well. Civilian Shields again. Warfare is evolving...much like the difference between WWI (Static Defense, Trench Warfare) to WWII (Mobile Warfare, Air Power, greater distances). Success depends on how well one adapts to this Warfare.

The US is relatively doing a good job. As Osamas death indicates, precision strikes are the way to go about it. No US Casualties, Target Identified and Eliminated, minimal collateral damage. Quick, surgical strikes are the best way to fight against an Insurgency that masks itself as Civilians.

[Brandon]

The reason for the rules of warfare that was created during the Geneva convention was to take a lot of the barbarism out of war. If conflicts in both world wars, the korean war, and desert storm did not go by those rules we would see a lot of things done by both sides that we would consider atrocities right now.

Simply put, the rules of war are there for a reason and I would never want to see a world where war was conducted with out them

[MagicalPen]

Nothing is more barbaric then man killing man.

I agree that things like Nukes and Gas should be eliminated from war, but the size of the bullet that you use to kill some one with should not be. I rather think its crueler to intentionally wound some one (the NATO round) then it is to kill them - causing them grievous bodily harm, pain and suffering.

But lets keep this talk about Osama's death.

I would love to see the official report on his death and the events surrounding it. The Muslim World has apparently verified his death now as they are having Mourning sessions and the like. But I think its possible to see how effective his death is/was since there have been no retaliations or demonstrations in the streets over it yet.

[HairyHeretic]

If you're dealing with a conventional war, I kill a soldier and he's dead. End of story.

I wound him and you have to take care of him, draining your resources. Either way he is still removed as a combat effective, but I tie up more of your side in medical needs.

[Pointless Digression]

"Kill them all, the Lord will know his own." is still remembered today as "Kill them all and let God sort them out." Gnosticism in general has a long history of persecution, beginning with giving too much respect to women. Considering that Gnosticism holds some of Christianity's most compelling mythology, it's certainly spoken of.

It's a fair point, but I face obvious problems in referencing a belief system or idea that has been genuinely forgotten about. I used the example of the Gnostic belief systems to point out how those religions, once practiced by thousands, are now relegated to historical footnotes and intriguing bits of trivia.

[MagicalPen]

If you're dealing with a conventional war, I kill a soldier and he's dead. End of story.

I wound him and you have to take care of him, draining your resources. Either way he is still removed as a combat effective, but I tie up more of your side in medical needs.

But how much does that happen? In conventional warfare, everyone has a Medic. I would think that seeing your buddy killed is more demoralizing then seeing him injured.

[Zakharra]

The reason for the rules of warfare that was created during the Geneva convention was to take a lot of the barbarism out of war. If conflicts in both world wars, the korean war, and desert storm did not go by those rules we would see a lot of things done by both sides that we would consider atrocities right now.

Simply put, the rules of war are there for a reason and I would never want to see a world where war was conducted with out them

The problem with that is the rules of war only work when you're fighting another nation. If you're fighting a movement like Al-Queda, who does not fight by those rules, you end up hampering yourself a lot if you follow every rule.

Wars are won by getting down on the level of the enemy and fighting them at their level. You can bemoan the people you are killing while you do it and afterwards, but sadly, sometimes it is necessary.  The last wars we fought without any real rules was WWI (the first use of machineguns in a war, nerve and poison gas attacks) and WWII (nuclear bombs, carpet and fire bombing of enemy cities). The Korean and Vietnam wars were fought with rules and we lost or ended up in a stalemate of sorts. Desert Storm was a curb stomp through better technology and equipment and even that ended up being a stalemate for 10 years.

[Oniya]

But how much does that happen? In conventional warfare, everyone has a Medic. I would think that seeing your buddy killed is more demoralizing then seeing him injured.

That would depend on how he was injured.  Severe burns, mangled limbs, and the like may not kill, but every single time you see your buddy, you have to deal with the results of his injury.  He has to deal with the results of his injury every day.  At the time I left DC (part of that job included delivering computers to WRAMC), we were still devoting time and resources to Gulf War Syndrome, which doesn't even have the same sort of visible impact as amputations or burn scars.

[Zeitgeist]

That said, closing Gitmo may have denied us a crucial piece of intelligence that led us to the compound in Pakistan.

Gitmo is still open. What are you talking about?

You read what I wrote, right? Note my usage, and emphasis of may and the tense of my words. One of Obama's official declarations was to close Gitmo. Ultimately that effort was defunded, and Gitmo was not closed. But had Obama had his his way, it may have been, and as a possible result we may (note: may) not have had the intelligence that lead to this success.

That is what I meant.

[Oniya]

I'll admit, the phrasing was puzzling to me as well.

[Inerrant Lust]

Had Gitmo never been made into the kind of place it is, we might not have also fueled anti-american sentiment that created far more insurgents than any Al Qaeda propaganda could.

Had we never gone into Iraq, we might have been able to focus all our attention on Afghanistan and found Osama years earlier.

[Zakharra]

Had Gitmo never been made into the kind of place it is, we might not have also fueled anti-american sentiment that created far more insurgents than any Al Qaeda propaganda could.

Anything we do will fuel anti-american sentiment. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what we do. We fight back, we are the evil Americans. We don't fight back, we are the evil and weak Americans.

[HairyHeretic]

Things like Gitmo are what ruins your reputation in the eyes of your allies, and those who are neutral towards you. Your enemies are going to hate you no matter what.

[Jude]

Last I heard as a result of a senate committee delving into the matter, this information was obtained by the use of normal interrogation techniques, not torture (or so called EITs).  You don't need GITMO to interrogate terrorists, the reason that place has a black eye is because of supposed systematically inhumane treatment of inmates.  There is no evidence that such treatment lead to this disclosure.

Obama's plan basically was to relocate GITMO to Illinois and treat the inmates better, not get rid of it entirely.  It was largely a PR move to make US allies more comfortable and comply with international regulations.

[Callie Del Noire]

Things like Gitmo are what ruins your reputation in the eyes of your allies, and those who are neutral towards you. Your enemies are going to hate you no matter what.

Agreed. More oversight, and the concern that what was happening there after the incidents in Iraq did nothing for our national standing overseas. Gitmo was an illplanned mistake that could have been done a LOT better.

[gaggedLouise]

Anything we do will fuel anti-american sentiment. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what we do. We fight back, we are the evil Americans. We don't fight back, we are the evil and weak Americans.

Okay, so people around the world are just against America out of envy for American wealth and power? So inevitably conflict ensues, and if those others aren't strong enough to defeat you, then they deserve to be stepped upon, 'cause war is war.

If you strip off the moral hokum (war is war, right!) and resolve to judge only by military professionalism, how does this outlook reflect back on Pearl Harbor? Expert action, a daring raid  that was brilliantly executed and with great impact. Gotta admire those Japanese, don't we? And they had been provoked and treated less than fairly by the U.S. in the decades before 1941, no doubt about that. What could be wrong about the Japanese not wishing to be seen as weak anymore?

You could move the parallel a good deal closer in time, too. Seriously, I'm not anti-American but the main reason the battle of Fallujah (with bombings and attacks with self-flammable phosphor on civilians etc) isn't perceived as just as barbaric as 9/11 is that nobody saw it happening on live tv and much fewer people read about it in the morning papers.

[MagicalPen]

Not quite sure I agree with your Pearl Harbor statement. The Japanese didn't commit it out of hatred for the Americans. They committed a well executed (and we won't get into conspiracy theories here) surprise attack on their only major threat to their Pacific Empire Expansion. The Americans had imposed an Oil Embargo on the Japanese due to the Japanese expansions in Asia - namely, their war of expansions against the Chinese (after that famous railroad incident in Manchuria). Japane was a growing threat to Western Interests in the area, which were all invaded during WW2 by the Japanese. Post Pearl-Harbor, the hatred was used as propaganda, to make the Japense inhuman and evil. Japan had also long been trying to turn itself into a country styled after the Western Countries, so one could say they were envious of the United States.

[Vekseid]

You read what I wrote, right? Note my usage, and emphasis of may and the tense of my words. One of Obama's official declarations was to close Gitmo. Ultimately that effort was defunded, and Gitmo was not closed. But had Obama had his his way, it may have been, and as a possible result we may (note: may) not have had the intelligence that lead to this success.

That is what I meant.

Hassan Ghul was captured in 2004 in Iraq, and was never sent to Guantanamo Bay. He was interrogated normally, and revealed al-Kuwaiti's identity a few years later - before Obama was elected. The reason the raid occurred now was because Wikileaks released the courier's identity a week prior, which meant that Obama had to act on the information or risk Osama running off somewhere again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8489866/WikiLeaks-Bin-Ladens-courier-trained-911-hijack-team.html

Of special note is that Khalid Sheik Muhammad never released the al-Kuwaiti's identity, despite the amount of waterboarding the US put him through.

Guantanamo did not work. Simple as that.

[gaggedLouise]

Not quite sure I agree with your Pearl Harbor statement. The Japanese didn't commit it out of hatred for the Americans. They committed a well executed (and we won't get into conspiracy theories here) surprise attack on their only major threat to their Pacific Empire Expansion. The Americans had imposed an Oil Embargo on the Japanese due to the Japanese expansions in Asia - namely, their war of expansions against the Chinese (after that famous railroad incident in Manchuria). Japane was a growing threat to Western Interests in the area, which were all invaded during WW2 by the Japanese. Post Pearl-Harbor, the hatred was used as propaganda, to make the Japense inhuman and evil. Japan had also long been trying to turn itself into a country styled after the Western Countries, so one could say they were envious of the United States.

Well, the U.S. (or the British) were not looking into plans to go to war with Japan on behalf of the Chinese, or out of concern over what the Chinese people were going through. They were looking to their own interests. And up to Pearl Harbor, Japan had not made much of a direct attack on Western bases in the Far East. The real underlying conflict was about trade and empire; the Japanese - the leading guys over there at least - wanted to secure bigger and better markets and corner some countries they could exploit, just like the Western powers had long been exploiting China and India and getting free (or very underpriced) labour and goods from them.. To get there, the Japanese figured they had to break down the imperial ambitions of the English and the Americans: they assumed they were doing what the U.S. had done with Spain forty years earlier, overrunning a weak empire. Of course they underestimated their enemy across the Pacific but who dares wins.

In the film The Last Emperor, there's a scene set in the mid-1930s where a high-ranking Japanese puts it to the emperor Pu Yi (whom the Japanese have assisted, but also made a puppet emperor of Manchukuo/Manchuria) that "if a man steals a little he is called a thief. If he steals a lot, he is called a hero. If he's an Englishman he may even get knighted. India has always had to pay for its conquerors; so must Manchukuo". That's imperialist logic and I don't think Teddy Roosevelt or even Winston Churchill would have denied that statement on principle, though they wouldn't have wanted it turned against their own countries.

I admit the ideology and the methods of the Japanese were openly racist on a quite different scale than anything the Americans (or the English post-1900, note I'm talking about concepts and strategies, and not just the actual magnitude of massacres etc) were doing, but the underlying idea that if you want an empire, a wide sphere of influence where you can set the rules of the game, then that want excuses kicking at everybody's butt and trying to subjugate anyone who is in your way - that idea has been just as much at home in American policymaking sometimes as it was in Japan then, and not just back in the days of WW2.

[Zakharra]

Okay, so people around the world are just against America out of envy for American wealth and power? So inevitably conflict ensues, and if those others aren't strong enough to defeat you, then they deserve to be stepped upon, 'cause war is war.

For the most part, that's right. Right now we are the only superpower in the world. Everything we do is scrutinized and commented on. From business, to politics, economics and more. Something happens, we get yelled at. A disaster happens and we have people screaming at us to help, which we do. We're a damned generous nation even to our enemies (after the Iran earthquake, we sent in aid). More so than any other nation.

Hell, we even give back land we've conquered in the last century. Otherwise we'd have Cuba, the Philippines, France, parts of Germany, Italy, North Africa, Kuwait, Iraq and other places. Instead, we have not claimed the land as ours, but gave it backto the people of the land.

If someone is trying to take us over, which is a goal of many radicals  (radical muslims are included because they use that as their focal point in attacking us and they get a LOT of support from fellow muslims), we should fight them.

[gaggedLouise]

For the most part, that's right. Right now we are the only superpower in the world. Everything we do is scrutinized and commented on. From business, to politics, economics and more. Something happens, we get yelled at. A disaster happens and we have people screaming at us to help, which we do. We're a damned generous nation even to our enemies (after the Iran earthquake, we sent in aid). More so than any other nation.

Hell, we even give back land we've conquered in the last century. Otherwise we'd have Cuba, the Philippines, France, parts of Germany, Italy, North Africa, Kuwait, Iraq and other places. Instead, we have not claimed the land as ours, but gave it backto the people of the land.

If someone is trying to take us over, which is a goal of many radicals  (radical muslims are included because they use that as their focal point in attacking us and they get a LOT of support from fellow muslims), we should fight them.

Establishing military bases and interfering with the groundwork of the economy of a country can be just as effective, or an even better option, as actually adding it to your land empire. You don't have to take responsibility for the safety of the people who live there or take charge of things like public health or the legal system, but the advantages fall to you anyway. Especially if your military is much more powerful and well-equipped than the armed forces of the country itself, and independent of the communications lines that others get to use.

In 1990 when Saddam had invaded Kuwait, a bunch of American diplomats and military men went to Riyadh to try to get the Saudis to allow them setting up U.S. military bases and airfields as a brotherly gesture of alliance to strengthen both Saudis and Americans against Saddam - and against others too. After some hesitation, the Saudi king agreed, but on strict condition that the bases would be temporary only and would be evacuated when the war was over (from Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies). Twenty years later the bases are still there and have been expanded. Saddam and bin Laden had nothing to do with each other, but you don't think this "elbowing yourself in" strategy provided al-Qaeda with some great arguments to add to their recruitment talk? It's all quite typical.

[Jude]

Seriously, I'm not anti-American but the main reason the battle of Fallujah (with bombings and attacks with self-flammable phosphor on civilians etc) isn't perceived as just as barbaric as 9/11 is that nobody saw it happening on live tv and much fewer people read about it in the morning papers.

The fact that you seem to believe the italicized portion disproves your statement in bold.  There is zero credible evidence that WP was ever used against civilians.

The major source of your claim is a documentary that aired on the Italian state-run Television station which was later shown to be full of holes big enough that you could drive an aircraft carrier through.  "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre" includes footage that the film makers claim is WP distribution onto a civilian population via helicopters.  There's just one problem:  you can't deliver WP that way -- that's not how WP is used.  They're probably countermeasures for blocking targeting of aircraft via surface to air weapon or illumination flares.  The film also has an ex-American serviceman testify that Fellujah was "just a massive killing of Arabs."  Amazing, after a bit of research it came out that he wasn't even present firsthand during the fight.  And that doesn't even begin to get into the "body" evidence which is also spurious.

During the battle of Felujah around 100 American Soldiers were killed, about 1300 Insurgents, and around 800 civilians.  On 9/11 about 3000 civilians and 19 terrorist hijackers died.  If you can't see the difference between those two, I find that stunning

[Callie Del Noire]

Not quite sure I agree with your Pearl Harbor statement. The Japanese didn't commit it out of hatred for the Americans. They committed a well executed (and we won't get into conspiracy theories here) surprise attack on their only major threat to their Pacific Empire Expansion. The Americans had imposed an Oil Embargo on the Japanese due to the Japanese expansions in Asia - namely, their war of expansions against the Chinese (after that famous railroad incident in Manchuria). Japane was a growing threat to Western Interests in the area, which were all invaded during WW2 by the Japanese. Post Pearl-Harbor, the hatred was used as propaganda, to make the Japense inhuman and evil. Japan had also long been trying to turn itself into a country styled after the Western Countries, so one could say they were envious of the United States.

Fun note..the Japanese Naval Academy had put the question 'How would you attack Pearl Harbor?' on their exams for DECADES before the attacked it. The Japanese saw them as chief rivals for resources in the Pacific. And institutionally they never liked the smack in the face that Perry had given them. LONG memory.

[gaggedLouise]

"Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre" includes footage that the film makers claim is WP distribution onto a civilian population via helicopters.  There's just one problem:  you can't deliver WP that way -- that's not how WP is used.

Agreed that what's shown in those particular clips could be a different kind of weapon, but that doesn't disprove that white phosphorus was used; and no one denies much of the town was levelled with many civilians buried under the rubble or smashed for life. There was minimal media presence during the entire battle, tv teams are not freely invited to that kind of fighting, and that was the main point of my argument. When a massacre or an atrocity is shown on live tv and primetime news for all to see it incites a much more powerful response, and governments and army staff know about this and adapt to it. So what gets shown on tv and what is kept off becomes a matter of importance.

The film also has an ex-American serviceman testify that Fellujah was "just a massive killing of Arabs."  Amazing, after a bit of research it came out that he wasn't even present firsthand during the fight.

Jeff Englehart, the ground soldier you're thinking of, wasn't an eyewitness inside the city but he had been with the forces just outside and had been in touch with people who had gone in, or who had been higher up in the chain of command during the battle. So he may very well have acquired his information from other soldiers. There's nothing surprising about how soldiers who had seen ugly things committed by USAF first-hand would not want to talk openly to outside reporters about it.

During the battle of Felujah around 100 American Soldiers were killed, about 1300 Insurgents, and around 800 civilians.  On 9/11 about 3000 civilians and 19 terrorist hijackers died.  If you can't see the difference between those two, I find that stunning

It's the kind of attack and the fact of its indiscriminateness that matters, not simply which number is the larger one. I could have brought in Hiroshima but I wanted to keep to events that had happened in the last ten years and so Fallujah was the most obvious instance. Bombing was indiscriminate in Afghanistan during 2001-02 as well, thousands of civilians who had never had anything to do with al-Qaeda must have died - or perished during the cold winter months after their houses, crops and villages had been blown out.

Many of the victims in Fallujah were civilians and they had certainly not done anything in order to be roasted or maimed.The number of dead is not dependent on whether phosphorus was used, plus numbers of casulaties in this kind of thing are uncertain as a matter of course.

Even the people who were fighting in Fallujah were engaged in a perfectly legitimate effort to drive out the occupying power. They were not motivated simply by any support for Saddam but by a legit wish to become a part of the future of their country: the U.S. had not presented a viable future (I know you will contest this, Jude, but tough luck!). You don't have to share the political ideals of a given resistance group to see that their cause may be legitimate inasmuch as they're opposing a forceful occupant that's killing their friends and exploiting their country - isn't that part of the basic American idea of freedom, that a people has the inalienable right to kick the butt out of anyone trying to oppress them?

And by the same token, criticizing American policies or misguided acts of U.S. warfare, torture etc is not the same as being anti-American or even "un-American".

Before we get into a free-for-all about the Iraq war here I would point out that I didn't invoke Pearl Harbor and Fallujah to say Bush was bin-Laden or that FDR was Tojo, but to show that it doesn't work too well to defend all kinds of measures of war or vengeance, all in one, by saying "I've got a right to kick anyone I want to bits, that's what anyone does and if you're opposing it you just don't get why the USA is great".

[Will]

Agreed that what's shown in those particular clips could be a different kind of weapon, but that doesn't disprove that white phosphorus was used; and no one denies much of the town was levelled with many civilians buried under the rubble or smashed for life. There was minimal media presence during the entire battle, tv teams are not freely invited to that kind of fighting, and that was the main point of my argument. When a massacre or an atrocity is shown on live tv and primetime news for all to see it incites a much more powerful response, and governments and army staff know about this and adapt to it. So what gets shown on tv and what is kept off becomes a matter of importance.

It isn't up to others to disprove your claim.  If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.  You can't act as if it's a given that chemical weapons were used, when the only evidence for it you've given
has turned out to be thin.  Your point is that media aren't invited to that kind of fighting?  What makes you so sure it even was that kind of fighting?  Other than this video, that is.

Before we get into a free-for-all about the Iraq war here I would point out that I didn't invoke Pearl Harbor and Fallujah to say Bush was bin-Laden or that FDR was Tojo, but to show that it doesn't work too well to defend all kinds of measures of war or vengeance, all in one, by saying "I've got a right to kick anyone I want to bits, that's what anyone does and if you're opposing it you just don't get why the USA is great".

That much, I agree with completely.  I just don't know if it applies to the situation you describe.  Or to the original topic.

[gaggedLouise]

It isn't up to others to disprove your claim.  If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.  You can't act as if it's a given that chemical weapons were used, when the only evidence for it you've given
has turned out to be thin.  Your point is that media aren't invited to that kind of fighting?  What makes you so sure it even was that kind of fighting?  Other than this video, that is.

I pointed to the use of WP as an example of the severity, the barbarity even, of the fighting - and also to hint at the crushing superiority of the US military vs those who were defending the city. My argument doesn't hinge on whether white phosphorus was actually used, though I think it's likely given the facts. WP isn't my smoking gun here. The real weight of what I'm saying is in the numbers of civilians killed and the fact that the methods of fighting blew the city and a large part of its population to bits. And it was typical of the Iraq war as a whole.

Before we get into a free-for-all about the Iraq war here I would point out that I didn't invoke Pearl Harbor and Fallujah to say Bush was bin-Laden or that FDR was Tojo, but to show that it doesn't work too well to defend all kinds of measures of war or vengeance, all in one, by saying "I've got a right to kick anyone I want to bits, that's what anyone does and if you're opposing it you just don't get why the USA is great".

That much, I agree with completely.  I just don't know if it applies to the situation you describe.  Or to the original topic.

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.

I agree this isn't what the thread was originally about but the death of OBL raises these issues again, because of everything that's happened around the "war on terrorism" since 2001.

[RubySlippers]

We should have kept Saddam in power he killed terrorists and was supporting us now they have another base to operate out of.

And who cares about the whys and wherefores in a clean, effective and skilled raid by our Navy Seal teams they got and eliminated OBL and the government collected the evidence of it that I SAY release photos of him getting shot, dead, on the ship and his funeral at sea with the test results run by several parties to be sure including Interpol. Was it just to do this - yes.

As for collateral damage in battle its war folks and civilians die in war like I said I would not have gone into Iraq the bastard was evil but contained and was helping us by not letting terrorists base there at least without him resisting it. That was a horrible move our enemy was in Afghanistan and by defualt Pakistan.

As for the Japanese they attacked Pearl Harbor, targeting civilians and military there and acting like animals to our troops and our allies during the war they deserved to get the first atomic bombs dropped on them. Did you forget the Battan Death March, Rape of Nanking, did human experiments on our soldiers and the murder of our soldiers by the Japanese when we tried to liberate islands. What did they think was going to happen? They got off lucky we helped them rebuild and now are an allie time proved Truman and our leaders right the use of the bombs and spared many more lives lost on both sides.

[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.

[Sabby]

Uhm... the photo of him is all over Facebook. I'm too squeamish to click the link, but the preview photo shows Osama's face pretty roughed up. Theres no yawning hole in his eye though, so it could be faked. Says its a vid though...

Went to find link, but its just vanished :/

[Zakharra]

 I'd check your virus scanners. There have been viral links from people offering up pictures of bin Laden that have been used to infect your computer.

[Aleph]

If we can go back to the section where the respectful treatment of the dead was discussed, my understanding is that images of the dead are considered disrespectful to the deceased. That may have figured in the US Govt's decision not to release images of the bodies post-raid.

My memory is fuzzy on details here, but I remember the US military taking flak from Islamic allies for showing post-death images after they shot some of the current (at that time) Al Qaeda higher command. Either way, it might be something of a lesson learned.

[Pointless Digression]

I think I have to agree with Jon Stewart on that point.

The best reason in my mind for releasing the pictures is that we have been fighting this war for nearly ten years, thousands of US deaths, tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have died, and we’ve seen nearly zero photographic evidence of it. Remember how long the media had to fight to show military coffins returning from overseas? You probably don’t remember, because you saw pictures of it the day they won the case and not since.

Maybe we should always show pictures:  Bin Laden, pictures of our wounded service people, pictures of maimed innocent civilians. We can only make decisions about war if we see what war actually is and not as a video game where bodies quickly disappear leaving behind a shiny gold coin.

[Serephino]

Yeah, there are a lot of fakes being sent around attached to a nasty virus.  I saw something about it on the news.  And really, the people demanding evidence will probably say the real photo is faked.  No matter what anyone does, those who don't want to believe will come up with some explanation to prove it's faked.  Look at the whole birth certificate bullshit....

He put a copy of it up on the White House website, with a few things blacked out for his own privacy.  The 'birthers' all said it was a fake.  Then he had that press conference recently where he showed the raised seal on his birth certificate (which people were bitching about), and posted a scan of the long form.  One would have thought that would shut the birthers up, but no....  The long form is also faked.  *rolls eyes*

I was hoping they wouldn't show it.  It was described as gruesome.  Supposedly a piece of his skull above his eye was blown off.  If people are sickened over pictures of injured soldiers and civilians, how would they react to that?  I don't want to see that. 

And no, this isn't about sinking down to the level of the terrorists.  First of all, there's something to be said for taking the high road.  Second, it would look bad to our allies because we would be just as bad as those who we want them to help us fight.  Thirdly, if it is released, there will be lots of people upset and bitching, so it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.  You can't please everyone all the time.  It was a tough decision, and I think President Obama made the right one.     

[Valerian]

While there may be some merit to what Stewart says -- I don't presume to know enough psychology or sociology to comment on that overall -- starting any trend in that direction by showing such inflammatory images as bin Laden with "part of his skull blown off," which is what all the news outlets are saying, would be a tremendously bad idea, in my opinion.

[TheGlyphstone]

And really, for anyone who's innately suspicious of the government and assumes this is all faked?

Wait a week. Two weeks, tops. If Bin Laden has not released an audio or video statement (through Al-Jazeera, probably) disproving his death, then he's gone. If he was/is alive, AQ would be pulling out all the stops to show that - it would make the US a laughingstock and utterly destroy our credibility for years thanks to all the hype. There's very little to be gained from playing along, and much to be gained by exposing the 'American lies'.

He's dead, Jim.

[gaggedLouise]

Heard on the news that al-Qaeda have released a statement - on a web site known to be linked to them - acknowledging that bin Laden died in the raid, but I'm sure some won't be convinced by this.

[consortium11]

If we can go back to the section where the respectful treatment of the dead was discussed, my understanding is that images of the dead are considered disrespectful to the deceased. That may have figured in the US Govt's decision not to release images of the bodies post-raid.

My memory is fuzzy on details here, but I remember the US military taking flak from Islamic allies for showing post-death images after they shot some of the current (at that time) Al Qaeda higher command. Either way, it might be something of a lesson learned.

If we're thinking of the same thing it was the death of Saddam Hussein's sons in a shoot out. The US released pretty graphic pictures of the pair to show they were dead and immediately found itself in a the middle of a storm... both internationally/politically and also on the ground where it enraged many.

[MagicalPen]

Part of the problem in general is that we are not exposed to death - in general - a whole lot, and when we are, its in the form of movies or video games, so it doesn't come across as real. So when people do see a picture of a dead-anything, they freak out over it. For me, when I see pictures of the dead, its more of a horrid-fascination that keeps me transfixed. The people shown look very dead, as opposed to in the movies or in video games, or are truly missing limbs or other parts of their bodies. Its not normal to 'see' things like that. But it goes hand in hand with the treatment of animals - slaughter houses etc - a hundred+ years ago, if you wanted meat, you cut your own chickens head off etc....but now, some one else does that for you, so you really aren't exposed to it, thus are revolted and disgusted by it.

Of course, the Muslims have no problem showing pictures of dead people and burned corpses on the news. But they cry foul when you show a picture of one of their own (and typically responded with violence).

And now that his death has been confirmed by the Muslims, they're all throwing a temper tantrum. Like, British Muslims trying to storm the US Embassy in London. I find it rather Ironic that these morons are shouting 'Death to the West! You're all Murderers!' and "Islam shall rule the World!", while 1. They Live in the West, 2. They wear Bulls Jerseys, drink Coke and Pepsi, ec in the Mid East, 3. Use Cellphones and Western Technologies, and 4. Require loyalty to religion over loyalty to country.

No other religion in the world is quite like the present form of Islam. Its rather barbaric when it comes down to it.

[Oniya]

Part of the problem in general is that we are not exposed to death - in general - a whole lot, and when we are, its in the form of movies or video games, so it doesn't come across as real.

Anyone care to join me in a 'head-desk' moment?

Fancy taking out Osama bin Laden from the comfort of your own living room this weekend?

From today, video gamers will be able to lead their own mission to assassinate the al-Qaeda leader when The Death of Osama bin Laden goes on sale - less than a week after US Navy Seals killed him in his secret hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10723950

[TheGlyphstone]

*sprays soda*

[gaggedLouise]

Part of the problem in general is that we are not exposed to death - in general - a whole lot, and when we are, its in the form of movies or video games, so it doesn't come across as real.

One of the top three most disturbing fiction films I've ever seen is Michael Haneke's Funny Games where two guys, at first looking like well-behaved neighbours in the holiday villa district, lure themselves onto a family by pretext of wishing to borrow some eggs. They capture the family, set up a "dare" with them - and with the viewers in the theatre - on whether their victims will survive till the next morning, and eventually kill them all, one by one, and making sure everyone dies in front of those who are still alive, excepting the last one of course. The movie has next to no direct on-screen violence, save a few carefully picked exceptions, but it tells the story and dwells on aspects you would never get to see in an ordinary friday night tv thriller: the despair of the parents after their son has been killed, for instance. And the lack of music and overt dramatic sweep make it even colder. The idea was to question why we're actually getting so used to violence as entertainment and by skewing the perspectives a bit and making it more realistic, it's a great success - but almost impossible to watch.

[HairyHeretic]

Colour me entirely unsurprised.

[consortium11]

Anyone care to join me in a 'head-desk' moment?

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10723950

That's nothing... I got to take out Osama and Saddam Hussein in one game... and I got to do it with Beat Em up gameplay.

I present America's 10 Most Wanted a game so ridiculous that I essentially bought it as a bet... and while it is in every way terrible... had almost as much fun with it as I've ever had with another.

[Sabby]

Ah, that game... the really bad shooter with the Mortal Kombat ending where ya roundhouse kick Osama into a helicopter to be taken off.

[blknwhite11]

Eh, I didn't feel much of a difference after he died and before he died, so I really didn't care.