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

[melloden]

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

Twatty AfDers.

[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.

[Tarc]

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.

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



for that fuckead. End of story.

[taiwopanfob]

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.

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

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.

[Tarc]

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.

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

This isn't an issue of "liberal" etc.

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.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Thu 5th May 2011, 7:34pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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.

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.