mayflow said:What a bunch of garbage. The US spent a ton of money to brutally kill someone who has been powerless for years. Why?
mayflow said:What a bunch of garbage. The US spent a ton of money to brutally kill someone who has been powerless for years. Why?
They wanted good press, right? And they want to get re-elected, right?
mayflow said:What a bunch of garbage. The US spent a ton of money to brutally kill someone who has been powerless for years. Why?
They wanted good press, right? And they want to get re-elected, right?
Pengwuino said:Wrong. And the US did not spend a ton of money just to kill 1 guy. We've been spending that money to fight and dismantle a global terrorist network. It's like saying we spent untold amounts of money and lost hundreds of thousands of lives in WWII just to kill Hitler.
mayflow said:I don't recall us killing Hitler?
Ivan Seeking said:I have no idea how you jumped to that. I was talking about getting Osama.
But it is interesting that where Bush failed after 7 years, Obama got him in 2; without the use of torture.
Lazernugget said:I'm happy for this. I was only 1 year old in 9/11 but I did research, and I nearly cried after watching the stupid idiotic terrorists smash into a building like that. What makes it worse is videos of people saying that it was a fluke and that it was a "Hologram" and stuff. But seeing even the stupid people's videos make me even more happy Osama is dead. I usually don't celebrate death EVER, but I am very happy that Al Queda's leader is gone. I will shortly post more of people's ideas on 9/11 that make me mad.
Overall, It makes me sad. Not just because of these terrorists, but of the world. People can be messed up, so much I feel like crying. Why does this have to happen? Why can't we all understand the damage things can do? I'm fed up with this fighting..
Anyway, woo hoo, Osama is dead. There's still thousands more evil people who can't understand what their choices will do to innocent people.
I think you're glossing over the times when Bush said that Osama wasn't a high priority. Of course, now that Osama is toast, the GOP is congratulating themselves for setting up an environment in which Obama couldn't help but succeed.CAC1001 said:Yes, Obama deserves credit for continuing the search and for having the guts to give the order on a mission that could have gone very wrong, but I would not discount all the stuff that was done in the prior years of the decade either.
Lazernugget said:Continuing from my other post:
1)Again, It took 10 years to kill this dude
2)This is only going to wound Al Queda temporarily, then, like a wound, Al Queda will heal and strike back at us harder. This war like cycle is stupid, We attack, they attack harder, we attack harder, they attack harder... if we can't solve this using tactics other than death and damage, then we're just going to keep getting blown up...
Newai said:What "full truth" could there be of any significance beyond his death? If Obama was wrong and OBL popped up alive and well, I don't think there could be a greater embarrassment he would have.
Do you have any idea how wealthy Bin Laden was? Did you actually have some point you were trying to make? What does how wealthy a criminal is have to do with anything?mayflow said:That is the way war mongers work. I see no modern diff between US and Bin Laden and Hitler anymore. They begin to blend together in a hating and war-monging symbionce. The only diff today is that the US is super-rich and the peoples it kills in the name of freedom are not as rich.
mayflow said:I don't recall us killing Hitler?
Char. Limit said:Way to miss the point.
turbo-1 said:I think you're glossing over the times when Bush said that Osama wasn't a high priority. Of course, now that Osama is toast, the GOP is congratulating themselves for setting up an environment in which Obama couldn't help but succeed.
mayflow said:That is the way war mongers work. I see no modern diff between US and Bin Laden and Hitler anymore. They begin to blend together in a hating and war-monging symbionce. The only diff today is that the US is super-rich and the peoples it kills in the name of freedom are not as rich.
Evo said:Sorry mugs, but you are out of touch with current law. What the Presdient did is quite legal.
pergradus said:Way to read one sentence of my post.
Neither you nor I know what the intelligence agencies had on him, nor if the "trail was cold". Clinton took some heat for saying that it was unlikely that the Pakistani government had no idea where he was, but it seems that she was right. Somebody on the inside probably gave him up IMO, but it's unlikely that we will ever get details.Pengwuino said:Let's be honest with ourselves, Bin Laden's trail was cold for years.
I don't think we ever said we wanted to just capture him, he was posted as "Wanted: dead or alive". I doubt he would have allowed himself to be captured, he'd die a martyr (in his mind) first.cristo said:Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Osama has been killed. I do, however, find it very difficult to believe that the US were prepared to capture him (especially since the AP were reporting that this was a 'kill' mission). After all, they sent in circa 90 soldiers, and there was not one US casualty. Seems like it was all a bit too easy, really!
cristo said:Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Osama has been killed. I do, however, find it very difficult to believe that the US were prepared to capture him (especially since the AP were reporting that this was a 'kill' mission). After all, they sent in circa 90 soldiers, and there was not one US casualty. Seems like it was all a bit too easy, really!
turbo-1 said:Neither you nor I know what the intelligence agencies had on him, nor if the "trail was cold". Clinton took some heat for saying that it was unlikely that the Pakistani government had no idea where he was, but it seems that she was right. Somebody on the inside probably gave him up IMO, but it's unlikely that we will ever get details.
turbo-1 said:Now, will we stop handing out billions yearly to an unstable nuclear power that could fall to tribal in-fighting? That's a tough one. Keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks if they look like they can maintain stability, or roll the dice?
The Pakistani government is highly sensitive to domestic uprisings. They are complicit in some US operations within their borders, but maintain a facade of deniability because domestic backlash is going to be virulently anti-US. This is not a big secret.Pengwuino said:Can you source this? 90 soldiers?? Some reports said there were maybe 3 helicopters. Dropping 90 soldiers into Pakistan "without Pakistan knowing" sounds crazy dangerous. "Oh hey, sorry Pakistan, we sent in a platoon of special ops to 'arrest' someone, suck it"
Maybe Pakistan was in on this. Maybe there were no US causalities because they only represented a small portion of the 90 soldiers.
Lazernugget said:2)This is only going to wound Al Queda temporarily, then, like a wound, Al Queda will heal and strike back at us harder. This war like cycle is stupid, We attack, they attack harder, we attack harder, they attack harder... if we can't solve this using tactics other than death and damage, then we're just going to keep getting blown up...
turbo-1 said:Neither you nor I know what the intelligence agencies had on him, nor if the "trail was cold". Clinton took some heat for saying that it was unlikely that the Pakistani government had no idea where he was, but it seems that she was right. Somebody on the inside probably gave him up IMO, but it's unlikely that we will ever get details.
Now, will we stop handing out billions yearly to an unstable nuclear power that could fall to tribal in-fighting? That's a tough one. Keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks if they look like they can maintain stability, or roll the dice?
Pengwuino said:Can you source this? 90 soldiers?? Some reports said there were maybe 3 helicopters. Dropping 90 soldiers into Pakistan "without Pakistan knowing" sounds crazy dangerous. "Oh hey, sorry Pakistan, we sent in a platoon of special ops to 'arrest' someone, suck it"
Maybe Pakistan was in on this. Maybe there were no US causalities because they only represented a small portion of the 90 soldiers.
Evo said:I don't think we ever said we wanted to just capture him, he was posted as "Wanted: dead or alive". I doubt he would have allowed himself to be captured, he'd die a martyr (in his mind) first.
I think it is a grey area, whether assassination (if that's the right word) is technically legal, but IMO that's only because of sensitivities and diplmacy. It doesn't have much to do with ethics/morality: Bin Laden's death was justifiable whether it was a kill mission or a "dead or alive mission". And as I said before and as the above from both you and me implies, the inability of a legal system to deal with someone like Bin Laden makes his death preferable to capture.cristo said:But this goes back to another issue discussed in another thread. One person has (allegedly) committed a crime against another country. Is it legal for the president of that country to send a group into a third country to kill this person? That quote governed what you can and cannot do to American citizens: was Osama American? Otherwise, whose law holds?
Why? I think either seems reasonable. The strength of the force that was sent in doesn't really say anything about the goal. Heck, if killing him is the only goal, a really big bomb would have a higher probability of success (note: sending in troops meant we were also able to acquire intel and ID the body). In either case, why is it so important if it was strictly a "kill mission"?cristo said:But in post 111 there is a link to someone in the white house claiming that the US attempted to capture him but he was killed in the firefight. I find it pretty hard to believe, to be honest, that there was any intention to capture him alive.
I'm sure capturing him was not at the top of the list. He'd be useless to us alive, he'd never give us any information.cristo said:But in post 111 there is a link to someone in the white house claiming that the US attempted to capture him but he was killed in the firefight. I find it pretty hard to believe, to be honest, that there was any intention to capture him alive.
russ_watters said:I think it is a grey area, whether assassination (if that's the right word) is technically legal, but IMO that's only because of sensitivities and diplmacy. It doesn't have much to do with ethics/morality: Bin Laden's death was justifiable whether it was a kill mission or a "dead or alive mission". And as I said before and as the above from both you and me implies, the inability of a legal system to deal with someone like Bin Laden makes his death preferable to capture.
russ_watters said:Why? I think either seems reasonable. The strength of the force that was sent in doesn't really say anything about the goal. Heck, if killing him is the only goal, a really big bomb would have a higher probability of success (note: sending in troops meant we were also able to acquire intel). In either case, why is it so important if it was strictly a "kill mission"?
I suspect the strength of the force was chosen because that's what fit in two helicopters and two helicopters was what fit just inside the grounds of the compound...
...and 79 is an interesting number, isn't it? [edit] Meh - not sure: don't know if the dog counts or not.
Evo said:I'm sure capturing him was not at the top of the list. He'd be useless to us alive, he'd never give us any information.
That's a good point. Osama has been living in luxury, and may have squealed like a pig if captured alive. We won't ever know, now.cristo said:You can never be sure about that, though!
turbo-1 said:I think you're glossing over the times when Bush said that Osama wasn't a high priority. Of course, now that Osama is toast, the GOP is congratulating themselves for setting up an environment in which Obama couldn't help but succeed.
It's pretty sick. Clinton didn't take out Osama, Bush didn't take him out, and when the Obama administration and the military/intelligence services pull it off, there is a great rush to divert credit away from him. I can't stand to watch the news these days because of all the packaging and spin that is put on every single situation.
cristo said:You can never be sure about that, though!