Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: melloden

Death of Osama bin Laden (T-H-L-K-D)

Twatty AfDers.

Posted by: radek

I'm surprised that "Osama bin Laden's death conspiracy theories" isn't up yet. I mean, it's about time!

Posted by: The Joy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

The nominator was arguing that the information on OBL's death should be merged to his biography, not deleted.

What's the saying? "Get your facts straight first, then distort them as you please."

The good news though is that OBL's biography is no longer under BLP protection now. Unleash the vandals!

Posted by: Silver seren

Ugh, stupid IP addresses keep putting stupid stuff in the article and the talk page. Nothing new there, but there's way more than i've ever seen.

Posted by: Somey

It appears the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden&diff=next&oldid=427002648 shortly before you posted this.

I dunno, I guess if someone's death is a Really Big Hairy Deal™ like this one is, then they might as well have a separate article, though it does seem a little... inelegant, such that it could conceivably be interpreted as a clearly US/UK-dominated group of "internet people" just gloating. Not that anyone is likely to care...

Still, if you look at other examples, they're either not much help or somewhat contradictory. For instance, Death of a Salesman (T-H-L-K-D) is a highly extensive article, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salesman&redirect=no is nothing but a redirect. Likewise, The Death of Ivan Ilyich (T-H-L-K-D) is also extensive, whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Ilyich&redirect=no is actually a redirect to the very same article.

I suppose a better comparison might be made to the Death of John Lennon (T-H-L-K-D), which is about half as long as the article on Lennon himself... except John Lennon wasn't the leader of a massive international terrorist network. Luigi Galleani (T-H-L-K-D) was the leader of such a network, but there's no separate article on his death - but that's probably because he died of a heart attack. Andreas Baader (T-H-L-K-D) was an international terrorist, but he wasn't really the leader of a massive network... but he committed suicide in prison to avoid execution, so that's probably not too encyclopedic. If he'd committed suicide in prison to avoid watching Doctor Who reruns, then maybe...

Anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter in the end.

Posted by: The Joy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_2&diff=427024740&oldid=427024621

Sigh... no one bothers to read the news and understand that the man died a week ago... NOT on May 2 (today)!

Posted by: Silver seren

Not a week ago, but April 29th in the morning, apparently.

Posted by: Somey

Ahhh, so it was his ghost I saw in the wee-hours while I was taking a shower! Well, now I know why he looked so pissed off.

Posted by: Milton Roe

There will surely be enough info on the operation itself to merit an article. Hell, there will be books about it, because it was a tough 10 year operation, and the endgame was 8 months.

The article on the death of JFK itself has subarticles. Bin Laden won't get that much.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Did he look like Akmed, the Dead Terrorist?

Posted by: mauve

April 29th was when Obama decided to go ahead with the operation. It actually happened on May 1st.

From the BBC:

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Or to paraphrase Lou Costello, Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Abbottabad!

Posted by: Silver seren

Yeah, I figured that out. Of course, the Death article didn't state that at the time, I had to look within the reference about April 29th.

Now, the issue is whether we're going to say May 1st or May 2nd. I would say 1st, since that was the day over here, while it was May 2nd over there. And this is English Wikipedia and not the Arabic version.

Posted by: Somey

You should have it say "April 31st," just to add to the confusion.

Besides, what's wrong with UTC? It's Universal, remember? And if you don't use that, you're supposed to use the local time - there are rules for this sort of thing, though I suspect most people on Wikipedia don't know about things like that.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Speaking of magic bullets, why not Frank Costello (the 54th anniversary of whose assassination attempt it now happens to be)?

Also speaking of anniversaries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mission_Accomplished_speech.

Posted by: carbuncle

I believe that English is the language used and has no bearing on time issues.

You could try making the case for all dates and times to be recorded in UTC to avoid confusion, but I'm sure that would cause no end of argument about how it would just confuse people. And some really entertaining discussions about UTC versus GMT and why each is best.

Posted by: thekohser

That's the first thing I thought when I saw the spelling of the location this morning, and the second thing I thought was, "Horsey's definitely going to make a joke about that on WR."

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Yes, there is no article on the Death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It's interesting to note that a mention of the killing of bin Laden now appears in Barack Obama (T-H-L-K-D), immediately prior to the sentence about Obama announcing his re-election campaign. U-S-A! U-S-A!

Posted by: Peter Damian

This is rather a sad thing, but this is the second Important World News Item that I first heard from Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: Silver seren

I'll see if I can do something about that.

Posted by: anthony

No edit war to rename the article [[Assassination of Osama bin Laden]]?

On a more serious note, where did the "week ago" rumor come from? I heard that too, but apparently it was false?

Posted by: Silver seren

Some early reports were saying that, I think because there was news that a DNA test was being performed to confirm it was bin Laden and it was taking a while.

Posted by: lilburne

(So) now that Obama has found Bin Laden do you think he'll also be able to find WMDs in Iraq?

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/dick-cheney-congratulates-obama-team-on-bin-laden-death.php

Posted by: anthony

One campaign promise down, 39 to go.

EDIT: Okay, it's http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/...

Posted by: Cedric

Hearing a lot of blather on the BBC right now about people doubting Obama's statement because no photographs of bin Laden's corpse have been released. A "deather" conspiracy theory seems to be forming.

I wonder if the US Navy releases http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972195/-I-want-to-see-his-Long-Form-Death-Certificate?

Posted by: Silver seren

The thing is, if it's a hoax, then Osama will just end up releasing a video saying, "Hey, i'm still alive". So, I don't see why Obama would take such an obvious risk by lying.

Regardless of the fact that the Taliban spokesman has already confirmed that Osama is dead and has vowed revenge.

Posted by: radek

I called that first. See my comment at the AN/I thread. Hell, it was my second thought when they interrupted Monk and told me Obama was going to make a speech.

Posted by: carbuncle

I don't see why the only two options are "bin Laden is dead" and "bin Laden has not been captured". A far better (and more likely) scenario is that bin Laden was captured in the raid and is currently in a US black site prison where he will be subject to illegal coercive methods in case he has any information that he is willing to give up. After all, why would the US give up a potential intelligence asset like that? Buried at sea? How convenient...

Posted by: Silver seren

Good point. That wouldn't really surprise me either.

But I don't believe that people should be starting such conspiracy theories without any real evidence for such as of yet. If inconsistencies start cropping up, then sure, but I don't see any reason to believe that version just yet.

Posted by: radek

Of course it was a conspiracy. It was a desperate conspiracy aimed at removing the stupid British Royal Wedding from my TV. The conspiracy just locked up my vote for Obama.

Posted by: Silver seren

Getting the Royal Wedding off television is definitely the highlight of his presidency, for sure.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: anthony

And the CIA will "prove" that the video is a fake.



So without any real evidence we should just believe whatever our fearless leader tells us to believe?

I don't think it really much matters if bin Laden is dead or not. He hasn't really done anything in about a decade. What really matters is whether or not the US government is going to act as though he's dead.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Nah, the man's good, but he's not THAT good.

The WMDs are in Dick Cheney's Imaginationland. To get there, I don't know what you have to do. Perhaps be able to look out of Cheney's eyes like in Being John Malkovich, only it would be Being Dick Cheney. Might look like the intro to one of those Bond movies where you start out looking at the world, down a rifled gun barrel. Or perhaps in Cheney's case, an unrifled shotgun barrel. Who knows? If you're going to be that surreal you might as well try LSD.

The years 2001-2008 may yet go down as the craziest, wackiest years in US history since 1968-73. Maybe since the civil war. I still don't quite believe any of it.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It ain't over yet.

That horse is already out of the barn. The evidence that bin Laden was a significant figure in the 911 attacks is sketchy or "classified." He initially denied involvement, but later claimed responsibility, whether because he thought he could become a Jihadist superstar, or for other, more complicated reasons.

Your question is appropriate, but the time frame is misplaced. Bin Laden was an intelligence asset beginning in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan. With any intelligence asset, it's very difficult to determine when one stops being one. Sometimes one is more of an asset dead than alive.

It appears that the Pakistani ISI has known bin Laden's whereabouts for some time. The decision to whack him probably earned them some big reward bucks. However, the timing raises many questions. It coincides with the decision to shut down the NYC trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which could have been embarrassing for http://www.larouchepac.com/node/17914.

Posted by: Detective

And of course the English Wikipedia is only for Americans so should only consider American time zones. Let's ignore the many English-speaking contributors in for example South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. In fact, bin Laden was in Pakistan, not an Arabic-speaking country. While many Pakistanis will know some Arabic for religious reasons, I'd bet that more of them contribute to the English WP than the Arabic one.



For a start, it's chronologically the wrong order.

Posted by: Somey

Indeed, most of us here in the United States probably think "Urdu" is an SMS abbreviation used to refer to another person's hairstyle or soft drink.

Posted by: Casliber

What was the first?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Tsunami I think.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I'm guessing the death of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26226 doesn't rise to that level.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

The US government is now admitting that bin Laden was unarmed. Presumably his wife was unarmed, too, when she was shot while "rushing the assault team." She must have looked pretty scary.

Osama bin Laden (T-H-L-K-D) does not acknowledge any of this. It says that "Bin Laden, three other men, and a woman were killed in a firefight in which U.S. forces did not experience any injuries or casualties." Well, Duh.

Death of Osama bin Laden (T-H-L-K-D) says that "According to U.S. officials, Bin Laden resisted the American special operation team. He was unarmed when he was shot." Since apparently he was not "rushing the assault team" along with his wife, exactly how was he resisting? Flipping the bird?

This looks like a summary execution, and I don't think it is going to help Obama's popularity all that much. I don't think even Dubya would have done this.

Posted by: Tarc

I'm a flaming liberal on most issues, but not on this one.



for that fuckead. End of story.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Wow, LessHeard vanU in a gif!

Posted by: Sololol

I think it's going to be the best boost for Obama so far. He's already pissed off the civil rights mavens by refusing to shut down Gitmo and not stopping the military tribunals but that's not a demographic that will decide 2012. Even Wassila AL could vote for the man who killed bin Laden.

Osama is not the first unarmed enemy combatant killed in the field by the U.S., just the only one people've noticed. I don't think it was a violation of international law or the US rules of engagement but, frankly, nothing would happen if it were.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Don't kid yourself. The lunatic right is still trying to attack him.

For example: Breitbart is doing his best to http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/breitbart-bin-laden-deathers/.

Posted by: Sololol

But kidding myself is what gets me through the day

Maybe Barry should have just taken Cheney's advice and used the nationally televised "Running Man" scenario Dick had planned. Or at least put up a Youtube video of Condi Rice eating Bin Laden.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

This isn't an issue of "liberal" etc. It's called "common sense", and you and the elements of the US government that ordered the hit are not evidencing any.

The options were:

1) ignore the man -- for all intents and purposes he has been dead for almost a decade.

2) capture, followed by kangaroo court

3) kill while attempting to capture

4) extrajudicial execution

(3) is much worse than (2), and (2) is massively, incredibly, worse than (1). That what went down was clearly option (4) ("take no prisoners"), is easily the worst thing imaginable from almost any rational perspective. What a complete mess! Someone clearly thought they could manage the situation, and now all we have are backpedaling on mission details and concerns about "inflaming the situation"(!!!).

Rah rah, though. Have your party, or whatever it takes to keep the smile on your face during your next anal probe at the airport. Think of it has OBL reaching out from the grave: praise be to Allah! Or whatever bin Laden would say.

Posted by: Milton Roe

You have it backwards. It's that picture in my mind of bin Laden with a couple of bullets through the eye, Moe Green/Bugsy Siegal/Goldfinger style, that will get me through my next airport experience. He got us first, but we got him last.


One good skullfuck deserves another.
-- Not M.K. Gandhi

Posted by: Milton Roe

Nobody would believe it, since Condi probably has yet to eat any man.

However, if you slathered bin Laden's corpse with bacon fat, I'll bet you could have gotten Andrew Zimmern to take at least two tastes. They missed thinking of that, and it would have made GREAT network TV. And serve a great many appetites all at once, while sending a message. I'd watch it.

Posted by: anthony

They said "surrender", he said "no", they shot him (*)? That pretty much seems to be within the rules of engagement, though I can't tell for sure since they're classified.

(*) "First, UBL was targetable based on his status alone, not just his conduct at the moment, so long as he had not surrendered (just as a bomb may be dropped on the quarters of enemy soldiers (and their commanders) while they sleep, unarmed). There is no obligation in combat, under IHL, to say to an otherwise lawful target “surrender or we’ll shoot.”" - Leon Panetta (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/05/on-the-legality-of-killing-ubl-even-if-he-was-unarmed-and-on-the-title-50-issue/)

An enemy combatant can legally be shot in the back while he tries to escape, can't he?



(http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument)



It's too bad he hadn't.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: Tarc

Sure it does; liberals are anti-war pussies, conservatives are wargasming hawks. This one time, I side with the hawks. No Trial of the Century, no cozy Supermax...hell, not even a burial site for them to make a martyr's shrine out of, he sleeps with Luca Brasi.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

With all due respect, you side with the sheep. The evidence linking bin Laden to the 911 attacks is dubious and/or secret. His organization lacked the expertise and logistics to carry out 911. He has been mythologized by the media into a Jihadi superstar, and this whole extravaganza was like a giant "APPLAUSE" sign lit up by the people who brought you Obama. Can you say "Pavlov"? Don't worry, the effects will wear off by the end of the week.

Posted by: Zoloft

He did confess, and the threads all led to Al-Qaeda. Next thing you know, people will be accusing Queen Elizabeth of being a drug pusher.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

He denied it for three years, until he realized that claiming credit for it was the equivalent of winning American Idol in the world of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonistan_(term).

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

I can't find the article now, but I think it was the LA Times which quoted an unnamed official as saying something along the lines of "He had a rifle next to him, and the SEALs were like, OK, not going to bother with trying to take him prisoner." Your choice whether to believe that or not.

The NY Times' most recent poll put Obama's popularity as having gone from 46% approval to 57% approval. Most of that is going to be temporary, but good for him?

Posted by: RMHED

Osama was just a sideshow, he was used by the CIA and Islamic extremists and subsequently discarded by both.

The real threat to world security is Pakistan, which is rapidly approaching the tipping point. Now I wonder who'll gain control of their nukes...

Posted by: anthony

What about all the other acts of terrorism that al-Qaeda has committed? Or do you not believe the evidence that Bin Laden was a key player in al-Qaeda either?



A confession, following three years of denial, does not qualify as evidence?

Posted by: Zoloft

Joint Special Operations Command (T-H-L-K-D)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Let's put it this way, gents. Bin Laden was without a doubt an unpleasant fellow. But for Obama to step into the spotlight and proclaim that the terror problem is now solved because we killed him is comparable to George W. Bush landing on that aircraft carrier in his flight jacket and saying "Mission Accomplished." http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2011/lar_pac/110502authors_9-11_still_at_large.html

However, I love the way that TV news commentators can't cover this story without getting "Obama" and "Osama" mixed up.

Posted by: anthony

You mean it would be comparable, if it had happened?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

The US alliance with Pakistan is a relic of the Cold War. Pakistan supported and funded the Taliban until the US told them to switch sides. We should be trying to ensure a controlled transfer of power to separatist states instead of trying to keep it together. The next Pakistani generation won't have any experience with the independence movement, and a state bonded together by religion alone won't strong enough to keep all those ethnicities together.

Posted by: Zoloft

Obama:

Bush:

Posted by: Tarc

At first I was just going to lambast you as a simple ignoramus, not unlike http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fb309d/article/mendenhalls-bin-laden-tweets-cost-him-an-endorsement-deal. But then we see you citing "larouchepub.com" futher on, so that pretty explains what is wrong with you.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

If you actually follow http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2011/lar_pac/110502authors_9-11_still_at_large.html, you will note that LaRouche, being interviewed live as the events of September 11, 2001 unfolded, already possessed detailed knowledge of who bin Laden was, and had been writing about him and his activities for years. Most people heard of him for the first time in the weeks that followed.

There is actually much more substantial hard evidence implicating members of the Saudi government, in particular Prince Bandar bin Sultan, than there is to implicate bin Laden. Don't hold your breath waiting for an investigation of Bandar -- it already took place in the US Senate, and was promptly classified and hushed up under "National Security." And let's take a moment to recall that the same FBI that insists that bin Laden was the great mastermind, is the FBI that apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate#Intelligence_warnings of an attack, including the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate#Using_planes_as_missiles.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

At this point, we should all have learned that what Obama says is no reliable indication of what he intends to do. The main question to ask about the killing of bin Laden is why this particular moment was chosen to do it (and why he was not captured when it would have been a simple matter to do so.) To my mind, this was a PR stunt to divert public attention from the ongoing economic collapse, and somehow make a re-election bid by Obama seem credible.

Posted by: Tarc

So, Larouchetard, who did 9/11? Please be more creative than "the Jews".

Posted by: Milton Roe

You really need to read the 9/11 Commission report to see what kind of Kings of Komedy operation 9/11 was. It was done on a shoestring. It was carried out by amateurs. At some point we have flight school people asking around about these weird students who only want to learn how to fly jets but not land them. All this in retrospect, but it all happened. Not that much money was involved. The effects were spectacular because a skyscraper represents a HUGE amount of potential energy, just waiting to be tipped over. As does a moving jet aircraft, if you redirect it a bit. And to do that, all you need do is break through a very thin cockpit door (at that time), and the pilots are not armed. All you need is 4 muscle-men and one guy who can turn an airplane.

The genius of 9/11 was in getting suicide operatives to apply force at three successive levels (pilot, plane, tower support structure) to gain access to larger and larger amounts of energy, in a chain. I don't think anybody, including al-Qaeda, thought the buildings would actually collapse. But hot steel won't stand those loads, and one section brings down the next, and away you go. As we know now.

Totally brilliant and nothing anybody saw coming, because nobody ever envisioned suicide jet-hijackers. Even Tom Clancey, a very bright guy who came closest to forseeing 9/11 in Executive Orders (1996) did it with a kamikazi Japanese airline pilot. The last flash of insight about not needing a skilled pilot if you take over the plane IN FLIGHT hadn't been arrived at.

Did bin Laden think of it? No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the brains. Bin Laden provided the resources of of al-Qaeda, such as they were. And because the idea was so damned original and so damned fanatical-- it took 20 men (19 in the event) who were willing to fly, or watch while they were flown, into a *&%$ng BUILDING at 500 knots-- it was enough. As with Lee Harvey Oswald and his surplus rifle almost as old as he was, audacity, originality, and sheer craziness counts for a lot. Sometimes more than all the planning and money in the world can buy from sane operatives and professionals.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Er, I just saw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate#Using_planes_as_missiles mentioned above.

Posted by: Malleus

I think you're probably right, but the lesson the USA ought to have learned from the kamikaze attacks at the end of the Second World War is the obvious one. It's almost impossible to defend yourself against attackers who know and accept that they will die in the attack, as Muslim extremists are encouraged to do.

Posted by: radek

"But for Obama to step into the spotlight and proclaim that " - your words. You were claiming he said something (or proclaimed it). Now you're saying something different.

Posted by: Zoloft

Best comment in thread.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

As I mentioned way back at the dawn of this thread, the timing is all the more curious because Obama had just shut down the planned trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in order to avoid a public examination of involvement by the Saudi government.
And as with Lee Harvey Oswald, it would have been fascinating and very, very informative to hear what he would have to say about it. The fact that both were murdered before they could stand trial speaks volumes. There is certainly no more convenient way to close a case.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yes, and it refutes none of what I said. Yes, people had tried to crash small private planes into things. Nothing like a commercial jet. Yes, occasionally some nutcase would suggest that hijackers might crash a jet into something, and those in the know said "Not realistic-- hijackers are not going to be able to fly a commerical airliner, and the pilot on the job is certainly not going to cooperate in any way with a suicide dive no matter what they do."

IOW, you'll never recruit hijackers from people who are already commercial airline pilots, and nutjob hijackers cannot be run through all the stuff it takes to become a commercial airline pilot. That's why Clancey has his suicide commercial jet attack done by ONE lone and crazy airline pilot, as an act of personal vendetta (and after killing the copilot, with no passengers on board). People who ever thought about it figured a committed hijacker type would never make it all the way to being a legitimate airline pilot, and nobody considered that anything less would do the job. You're either a pilot or you're not, no in between.

The idea that there was an "in between"-- that's the That you might be able to teach just 4 or 8 hijackers JUST enough about piloting a commercial jet to fly the plane (badly) after take-off (some tiny fraction of what you need to know to be a commercial jet pilot), and that they might actually go to school to learn JUST THAT MUCH, ala carte, never occurred to anybody. That's the stroke of both genius and madness. Who would have thought you could go pay a fee and be taught ONLY to fly a commercial jet plane badly, but not land or take off? I would not even have thought that possible (it would be like teaching somebody to remove an appendix without bothering to go to any medical school). Only the sorts of people who ran such private aviation schools would have known that. And these guys are pilots-- it does not occur to THEM that they're teaching people who are only interested in crashing and dying. Why the hell should it? It's so foreign to their every thought and instinct that they never seriously consider it, either. Probably they think their students are just dilettants like people who pay to fly mockup space shuttles.

And there you go.

Posted by: Milton Roe

No. Congress attached a rider to the defense bill that removed any funding to allow KSM to be tried in NYC, and the president signed it as part of the bill, while objecting to it. See congress if you want to complain, not Obama. Don't forget your "give the president a line-item veto" sticker.

KSM is scheduled for a military trial otherwise. Always a bad precident, given the many miscarriages of US military justice in the past. I believe they get credit for the two biggest mass hangings (native americans and blacks) and largest serial-electrocution series (Germans), as well as hanging of a woman while suppressing evidence of her innocence, etc. Somebody once said that military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I can hardly think of a dumber one. Why not take care of Oswald at his little boarding housing on the day of the assassination, or in the neighborhood nearby, instead of in front of a gazillion cops in the cop station two days later? There's a dumb plan. And what about the rest? A crazy strip club owner? Ruby had the chance to do Oswald the previous day, and has his weapon, but doesn't act. Why not? Yet the next day when Oswald is due to be transferred, Ruby is up the street sending a wire-money transfer to a stripper and would have missed it, if it had been on-time. Screwup. Oswald delayed, asking for a clothing change. Suicide, perhaps? And what about Ruby's masterful double-tap to Oswald's chest and skull? No? Just the old single-shot to the kidney-abdominal-vessels? Do they still teach that one specially to assassins planning to kill people on national TV? It does look cool, as you see on my avatar. But such precission in the clutch!

As for what Oswald would have to say, we heard enough to know, did we not? Lies. He denies owning a rifle. He refuses to answer questions about the fake ID in his pocket with his photo, that has the name he uses to order the rifle. He admits owning his pistol, ordered with the same name (wups) and address as the rifle. Shown a photo of himself with rifle, says it's a fake. But his wife says she took the photo (wups) and he does own a rifle. Photo and neg are matched to her camera and the place they had lived the previous March. Others have seen the rifle. A copy of the photo sent by Oswald to a friend and signed and dated (!) that April later turns up. The wife of Oswald friend has seen Oswald's rifle. Oswald's palmprint is on the rifle....

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Perhaps in real life, secret agents are not as awesomely competent as they are in the movies. Admittedly there is a controversy about Ruby and whether he was acting on his own (judging by the Wikipedia article.) However, as of yet, there seems to be little doubt that Osama was executed by official, credentialed agents of the U.S.A.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yep. A fact which in itself illustrates that simple and perhaps unpleasant fact that the 5 "great powers" on the UN security council operate outside any sort of international law. They do as they please and the worst they suffer is embarassment and world criticism or sanction. Which sanction for the economic powerhouse that is presently the US (still) can never be much. The US won't see the beginning of THAT light, until the Chinese start taking away our national credit card in about 10 years, and then you'll hear the sort of stuff that comes from entitled and addicted and violent children. But there will be no self-examination, since the US has never had to employ much, for the last century.

All of which raises to new heights of hypocrisy the US's hair-splitting about how to try "legal" vs. "illegal" enemy "combatants." What the hell does "legal" have to do with anything? Its only meaning, if it has one, could be expressed far more simply and honestly. "Illegal" in this case, is just a jive word for "The US doesn't like it" (US:DONTLIKEIT, to use a wikimetaphor). Like marijuana. The "single mad religious belief" that the average US citizen believes in, is that everybody in the civilized world (including the US) is governed by righteous internal and international laws, and (therefore, ipso facto, Q.E.D.) "bad guys" are also "outlaws," and therefore (if they employ force) terrorists. Whereas if the US employs force, we are never terrorists. Even if we blow up pharmaceutical factories and radio stations, or even invade whole countries and kill tens of thousands of civilians on totally bogus information and cretinous paranoia, we're just engaging in military action that has collateral damage, and not even an apology is needed.

We believe this including when this has no way to be true, except by redefining "laws" to mean "merely what the US doesn't like." We sought revenge against bin Laden in an anarchistic world, and took it. Fine by me, since he started it (or rather, he escalated it unreasonably). But at some point, the US is going to have to come to terms with the idea that anarchy for us means anarchy for others, also. If the US wants rules for war, it had better be prepared to abide by such rules, itself.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

But Oswald did not shoot JFK. http://bit.ly/mME7sr shows you who really did it!

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

According to the Wikipedia article, when Obama claimed credit for 9-11 in 2004, he said he was giving the U.S. a taste of its own medicine.

Posted by: anthony

Heh, you said Obama.

Posted by: Milton Roe

That's much the same as what Timothy McVeigh said. And if the US had done right in Waco, they would have avoided the Oklahoma City bombing. The truth is that the US doesn't really give a damn about things like Oklahoma City. They care about exercise of authority, and there's no limit to amount of damage they'll take, or blood and treasure they'll expend, to keep it. After all, the people who exercise the "authority" (a very funny word) are not the ones paying in either blood OR treasure.

That's the old game. It's very mammalian. Old beachmasters or harem bulls or whatever collect power, while younger bucks (the underclass and the young men) bleed and fight and and compete for a small chance to be old bulls. Women pick up (and feed on) the survivors, whoever they are, and losers are losers. Thus comes funding for the next generation.

And you know what? The above may sound cynical, but as bad as I am, I'm not cynical ENOUGH. Even I had a romantic vision of bin Laden living in a cave in the border hills, in a sparan warrior's existence. No. He was holed up in a nice comfortable compound with TVs and young wives (a running start on the 72 virgins he now enjoys, I suppose). Younger men were out doing his dying FOR him.

I. Am. Shocked.

Shocked, I tell you.

Posted by: radek

Hmmm, except that the USA actually didhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_blue_blanketagainst kamikaze attacks in WWII.

And that's just on a micro level. On the macro level you try to minimize the damage and sooner or later the enemy starts running out of kamikaze volunteers (which also happened in WWII, even sort of with the Germans since being a German fighter pilot wasn't that far off from being a kamikaze by late '43 or so - chance of survival were slim, much lower than fighting on the Eastern Front)

Posted by: EricBarbour

American politics in a nutshell. (I'd prefer to have Moe in the White House, at this point.)