Death of Osama bin Laden, ten years later ... Options

[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." The real perpetrators of 911 are still at large.

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

[anthony]

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."

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

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...

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.

[Zoloft]

Obama:

"Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad."

Bush:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

This post has been edited by Zoloft: Thu 5th May 2011, 11:26pm

[Tarc]

This one time, I side with the hawks.

With all due respect, you side with the sheep.

At first I was just going to lambast you as a simple ignoramus, not unlike a recent football player. But then we see you citing "larouchepub.com" futher on, so that pretty explains what is wrong with you.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If you actually follow the link, 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.

"Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into Existence. Osama bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi Arabian. Back in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, or shall we say the Brzezinski administration, the idea of running an Afghanistan war on the borders of Soviet territory was cooked up by Brzezinski as a geopolitical operation...

So, now you can blame Osama bin Laden. At some point, you go in and kill him, and you say the problem was solved. But you never considered who sent, who created Osama bin Laden, and who protected him, and deployed his forces and name for these purposes...

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 disregarded advance warnings of an attack, including the use of airliners as a weapon.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Obama:

"Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad."

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.

[Tarc]

...

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

[Milton Roe]

This one time, I side with the hawks.

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.

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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Totally brilliant and nothing anybody saw coming, because nobody ever envisioned suicide jet-hijackers.

Er, I just saw this mentioned above.

[Malleus]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 6th May 2011, 2:30am

[radek]

Obama:

"Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad."

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.

"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.

[Zoloft]

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.

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.

Best comment in thread.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Did bin Laden think of it? No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the brains.

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.

As with Lee Harvey Oswald and his surplus rifle almost as old as he was, audacity, originality, and sheer craziness counts for a lot.

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.

[Milton Roe]

Totally brilliant and nothing anybody saw coming, because nobody ever envisioned suicide jet-hijackers.

Er, I just saw this mentioned above.

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.

[Milton Roe]

Did bin Laden think of it? No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the brains.

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.

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.

[Milton Roe]

As with Lee Harvey Oswald and his surplus rifle almost as old as he was, audacity, originality, and sheer craziness counts for a lot.

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.

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....

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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.

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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

As with Lee Harvey Oswald and his surplus rifle almost as old as he was, audacity, originality, and sheer craziness counts for a lot.

But Oswald did not shoot JFK. This video shows you who really did it!