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.

[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

[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.

[radek]

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.

Hmmm, except that the USA actually did figure out ways to defend itself against 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)