Osama bin Laden Dead!

[Langy]

Major news outlets are currently reporting that Osama bin Laden was killed by a US missile/bomb some time last week, and for the past week we've been verifying that it was him. Obama is set to address the nation soon. You can watch it live here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/) and at other locations.

EDIT:

Contrary to earlier reports, Osama was killed during an assault on a compound just outside of the capital of Pakistan earlier today, not a bomb last week. He was apparently shot in the head, though it's not clear if we simply executed him or if he was resisting capture.

More info here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden).

[Inquisitor Lok]

Lol i was about to post this too :p
Pretty big news if its true.

They're are also going to stream it on CNN;
http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=C1

[-Str!ker-]

I was posting on it to. What do you guys think this will bring? I'm glad we finally got him for all the turmoil and death he has caused both here and in the Middle East.

[Trizzdog]

I should probably make a meaningful post about this but my fucking god I'm currently browsing about 5 forums and all I see is suddenly a bajillion threads about Osama bin Laden. At first I thought it was some spam bot breakout. I'll actually pay attention to this when the dust settles.

[Langy]

*Huge* moral boost, and a big boost to the President's approval rating, though neither effect may last for a particularly long time. Not sure what the international effect might be.

[CommodoreKitty]

Yeah, that is what I have been hearing. I have to be honest, after all this time I was sure that we were never going to get him. Good to see I was wrong. Whatever terrorists were under him will probably just join other organizations, but this is still a blow. I should think.

[Ogra_Chief]

Enjoy Hell you bastard...

[-Str!ker-]

As much as I don't like to celebrate people being dead. He got what was coming to him and I'm glad it was from our guys then just dying of a disease in some cave. I kinda wonder though if the victory will be short lived and he becomes a martyr to those he led and spur on more attacks?

[Croaxleigh]

From what I've heard on ABC, they waited several days to talk about it because they wanted to make sure it was him. They've done DNA tests on the body, comparing it to genetic material from his sister who died in the US a few years ago.


I kinda wonder though if the victory will be short lived and he becomes a martyr to those he led and spur on more attacks?
Supposedly the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are on high alert because of the possibility of retaliatory actions that might have been planned for this occasion.

[SpitfireMK461]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ47eGSilPc&feature=related

[Makenshi]

Damn I can already see this in his campaign next year: "Bin Laden eluded them for almost 8 years, I got him in less than 4". Not that it's true, there's a lot involved in such a pursuit.

[absauston]

I think him being dead has probably caused a jihad somewhere. Anyway, his actions will continue to affect the way we live, even though he is dead. Crazy isn't it?

[SpitfireMK461]

Really it's been 18 years of chasing him, ever since the first WTC bombing in '93.

[Saberdark]

I came in here without reading who posted it and assumed it was a troll/spam of some sort. Good to see I was wrong.

Personally I'm more surprised that he wasn't dead a long time ago. I've been assuming he was dead in a cave somewhere and we would never even know about it.

He's probably going to be more effective as a dead symbol than he ever was alive the last few years though.

[Croaxleigh]

Damn I can already see this in his campaign next year: "Bin Laden eluded them for almost 8 years, I got him in less than 4". Not that it's true, there's a lot involved in such a pursuit.
Well, Obama did mention killing him in one of the debates before the election. If nothing else, I guess it counts as keeping campaign promises.

[Mr Carrot]

Got to go into the office on the first train at.... 4:50am to do crisis reports urgh.

This is going to affect the rationale for Uk and Fr deployments in Afghanistan,

but anyway GG Yanks, America fuck yeah!

[Shaitan]

It wasn't a bomb however, they actually killed him in some sort of manned operation.

[Paladin]

Maybe after we wait out the inevitable furor that follows we can actually reduce the fucking terror alert below orange for the first time in 10 years. But somehow I doubt it, it's too useful to the government.

[Croaxleigh]

Paladin: They did away with the color-coded system back in January. It was replaced with a two-tier alert system, but there haven't been any alerts issued through the new system as yet.

[Paladin]

Then why is it every airport I passed through on my trip to and from Europe (Orange County, Houston, and San Francisco) were all constantly broadcasting that the current terror alert status was orange?

[Langy]

It wasn't a bomb however, they actually killed him in some sort of manned operation.

Yeah - turns out the earlier reports weren't 100% accurate. He was shot in the head by a SEAL team while in a mansion just outside Pakistan's capital, and this was earlier today, not last week. In any case, very good news. I have to wonder if he was just executed, though, or if he resisted capture personally.

[Buguba]

This is wonderful news for all the families he's broken. This is a great blessing for everyone (except Bin Laden of course). :)

[JAL-18]

We got him!

[Croaxleigh]

Then why is it every airport I passed through on my trip to and from Europe (Orange County, Houston, and San Francisco) were all constantly broadcasting that the current terror alert status was orange?
Not sure. The Homeland Security page on the terror alert system (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm) confirms that the color system is gone, though. The new system uses specific alerts (as in "We have reason to believe that something specific is going to happen" instead of "yeah, we're fucked") that have a built-in expiration date. I imagine that it'll get its first real test drive now that Bin Laden is dead, since it hasn't been used at all yet.

[guardsman lover]

Well, at least some people got satisfaction.

How the big picture will go, I don't really know. Sit tight.

[Mr Carrot]

Will bite,

end of GWOT this summer, draw down in Afghanistan, raison d'etre of GWOT has been slapping OBL for the last decade, UK and Fr will highly unlikely able to maintain public support for operations in Afghan, US support is already low. To be honest it's going to be hard to keep people caring about it now.

OBL is not only a great excuse to change how things are done, the fact he was in Pakistan shows that the pro-active focus is completely pointless in GWOT - transitioning to the security services overwatch stance which has been the actual effective portion of the GWOT since we pissed the initiative up the wall in 2002.

But yeah good times.

[dd14]

Can we bring our military home now?

[Akranadas]

@ Mr Carrot

Bin Laden was the symbol of Terrorism throughout the world. With the US finally taking him down, it shows that they can take out Terrorism, support for their actions in Afgahistan might actually rise.

[Starblade]

Well, that was easy.

[Mr Carrot]

Not by any predictions I have read, the point is that AQ will either disprese or have a go, OBL has always been a figurehead after the wrecking of AQ central command in the 2001 attacks on Afghanistan. You can never 'defeat' terrorism, you can mititgate it. Obama understood this prior to his election, he now has a perfect excuse to ditch the GWOT agenda now the public enemy has been offed.

Given that finding and killing OBL was the most popular reason for public support for Operations in Afghanistan I highly doubt there will be an upsurge in support for the NATO nation building mission (again with OBL not even being in Afghanistan....).

[Mirage Knight]

Smart thing using a SEAL team to nail him too. They not only have a body but also more than likely snagged a fair bit of intel relating to al-Qaeda's operations.

It's not the end of al-Qaeda, but this is an important milestone hopefully marking the beginning of the end. This demonstrates that with the right information, not even their top leaders can escape retribution.

[DeafMute]

So this is all 100% true?
Great news tbh, SEAL team?

My fav of all the US special forces. Fuck Yeah America!

[Mirage Knight]

Yup - SEAL team of 20-30. Shot him in the head during a firefight.

BOOYAH

[Ramrod]

I was woken up half an hour ago by my mother, who's frantically telling me "Obama's dead! They killed him!" First thing I think to myself is "what? The birthers can't be that crazy!" Then I read the actual headline. I would have facedesked if there had been a desk nearby.

Goodbye, you bastard.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Contrary to earlier reports, Osama was killed during an assault on a compound just outside of the capital of Pakistan earlier today, not a bomb last week. He was apparently shot in the head, though it's not clear if we simply executed him or if he was resisting capture.Not that I'm in anyway grieving for the bastard, but if he was executed isn't that... well a bit questionable? I don't think the conventions on not executing prisoners has a rider of "unless you really hate them".

[Kane935]

Were is the information that states that a SEAL team were apart of this operation? In either case, good job, and finally. But I doubt that it this point it will make a difference. Al-Qaeda is many headed hydra and it will probably be a tangible threat for a while longer yet.

[Paladin]

n0z3: The convention only applies if he had already been taken prisoner. If you shoot them before you take them prisoner it's just simple prudence ;)

[molo]

I love that this has just been announced and there is already confusion about the details, some of it bordering on conspiracy theory... "I WONDER IF HE KNEW ABOUT THIS WHEN *" is cropping up all over.

[Akranadas]

My Favourite that I've read is that they captured him in 2002 and froze him till they needed the morale boost.

[Starblade]

I love that this has just been announced and there is already confusion about the details, some of it bordering on conspiracy theory... "I WONDER IF HE KNEW ABOUT THIS WHEN *" is cropping up all over.

I read that also killed were three men, one who might have been his brother, and a female meat shield.

Considering all that we have done trying to kill him I'm not sure if we can call this a victory or not. At least he's actually dead.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

n0z3: The convention only applies if he had already been taken prisoner. If you shoot them before you take them prisoner it's just simple prudenceIf that's the case then it isn't an execution. Hence why I asked about that specifically.

[Croaxleigh]

So apparently, Fox News managed to botch the announcement just a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMP7Ys57ha4

[Starblade]

I feel this should be playing too for some reason. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcmuPc8_SWQ)

[Paladin]

If that's the case then it isn't an execution. Hence why I asked about that specifically.
They're the media. If the operation was essentially just a no warning, immediate sniper kill attack, they'll characterize that as an execution.

[Energizer Bunny]

What does this do for US relationa with Pakistan? Strikes me they havent exactly come out of this smelling with roses given that he turned out to in a mansion in a wealthy suburb of Islamabad rather than in some cave in one of the far flung mountains.

[Langy]

Not that I'm in anyway grieving for the bastard, but if he was executed isn't that... well a bit questionable? I don't think the conventions on not executing prisoners has a rider of "unless you really hate them".

When I wrote that it was just idle speculation (and I'd also apply it to 'walked into room, saw him, shot him before he could surrender even though he was unarmed'), but since then I've heard that he was actually resisting.

Too bad the human shield died. Wonder who she was?

[TheWickedGerman]

Too bad the human shield died. Wonder who she was?

Hmm, They said no civilians died in the operations on the German Radio, maybe it was a family member that it wasn´t considered a civilian? Glad that he is dead though, he deserved it for sure. I´m not usually someone who supports revenge but this guy is responsible for so many death and suffering.

I wonder what long term consequences this will have, it could even lead to more terrorism, if they "rally behind the martyr".

They discussing here already the implications for the German anti-terror-laws that would end jan 2012 normally and are currently under investigation for an extension.

They also said in the radio that this will help help im for his re-election a lot. Is this true? To what degree can this be credited to him, if at all? Or will the majority don´t care and just support "the President who killed Obama" ?

[Mac_Bug]

OK, I'll bite, how do we know it's actually Osama? Maybe he died in a cave long ago and nobody found out so they decided to fake a better death of him? CNN just said they buried his body at sea, so...

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN - Donald Trump

[Alliance]

yeah, while killing OBL will be a great morale boost an will most likely have some effect on AQ activities, it will do nothing to STOP terrorism, just like taking out Imad Mughniyeh did in israel.

[Vintage]

I think it's pretty fucked up Pakistan just let him chill in a mansion all this time.

[TheWickedGerman]

@MacBug: They said they have DNS proof.

[Ramrod]

I think it's pretty fucked up Pakistan just let him chill in a mansion all this time.

Somehow, I doubt that there was a parade to welcome Osama Bin Laden into Pakistan. The government claimed to be searching for him, but considering the geography of both Pakistan and Afghanistan, they would probably be looking for him in the North-West Frontier Province. And considering his famous choices in accommodations, they would have sooner been looking for him in some cave rather than in a mansion.

In all likelyhood, he was being hidden by some rich benefactors, since according to the CIA, much of the financing for these fundamentalist groups comes from wealthy "moderate" Muslims.


DNS proof

www.osamabinladen.com?

[n0z3k1ll3r]

When I wrote that it was just idle speculation (and I'd also apply it to 'walked into room, saw him, shot him before he could surrender even though he was unarmed'), but since then I've heard that he was actually resisting.Good to know. Thanks.

[Bonnet]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/02/world/02binladen4_683/02binladen4_683-custom11.jpg

Says it all really (wouldn't be surprised to see that up for a Pulitzer).

[WalkerK19]

I'm hoping with this great piece of news, will put a setback to the cells running around in my country... even for while.

[Coey]

I think it'll do the opposite Walker

[Methuselath]

Well, that should be enough to settle down all the mess caused by him.

Pity about all the chaos and turmoil caused by chasing him.

[sporty]

Osama cowering in some cave was certainly a more comforting image. Well, 10 years in a mansion versus maybe 20 years of hiding in the mountains, I'd say he made the right choice.

I'm surprised that this was still that important to people. Always thought he could've been dead for years, and it wouldn't have made a single meaningful bit of difference. If the designated kill teams really had to carry rapid DNA tests just for this purpose, it was still huge propaganda material, obviously.
Quite interesting how/if this affects the opinion on current deployments in other western nations. Might not be too smart to exaggerate this symbol now that it's gone.

[Dark_Axel]

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN - Donald Trump

I think he wants to see a death certificate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E&feature=aso).
Dutch news agencies report that the US has disposed of the body by a sea burial to keep it from becoming a place of worship for future terrorist.

Anyways, I guess we can finally close of this sage, spanning more then 4 US presidents and fixing the big FAIL of Bush Jr. who figured it was the best opportunity to focus on fixing his dads failure dealing with Saddam. But honestly, beyond the US morale and Obama boost. I really doubt it will change much in the long term for Muslim fundamentalist terrorism.

[Shraa Elohim]

I wonder how long it'll take before the first 'Osama bin Laden wasn't killed' alternate histories start coming out.

[Col Von Barring]

As a Muslim, it is a requirement that Bin Laden's body be buried within 24 hours. If the US have buried him at sea, as reported, then the religious tenet has been kept. If they haven't buried him this is another reason for the fanatics to fight on. Personally, I'd have wrapped him a pigskin and buried him in an unmarked grave. Allah won't want this murdering bastard anyway!

[scoiatollo]

http://a.yfrog.com/img619/5912/k5pct.jpg

Anyway, I doubt that this will change anything in the long run, Osama was not more than a myth for the last few years, influencing terrorists worldwide and for that it doesn't really matter if he's alive or not.

[OhJohnNo]

So, he was hiding in plain sight, and avoided being found because nobody was looking there. Gotta hand it to him, that's pretty clever.

Glad they finally got him. Finally, some measure of justice for the WTC attacks.

[TheWickedGerman]

Maybe it´s most important for the families and friends of the victims of 9/11. They can now "close the case".

[Sparki]

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN - Donald Trump

Or as the internetz would say: SCREENSHOT OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN ;D


I can´t say that I am happy. I have the feeling that this may to more martydom - or some headless snake thing.
I for one didn´t expect this one to pop up on this screen.

[Pocktio]

It doesn't matter that this will change nothing, what matters is that a mass murderer has been brought to account for his actions.

[Aron_DeTomado]

What do you guys think this will bring?
Guy Fawkes Day 2.0.

[Nurizeko]

So we gonna see pictures? Cos I aint believing it until I see proof.

[DeafMute]

Give the pictures time.
We'll get them just like the saddam death video.

[reki]

There are pictures - you just have to look around. Be warned though, they are pretty gruesome, but clearly him.

[TheWickedGerman]

The conspiracy theorist already claim otherwise.

Nothing is more strange than reading comments section on news sites. ;)

[Starfisher]

Yeah I'm kinda surprised that having just dealt with the incredibly stupid 25% of the country that refuses to believe that he was born here, Obama would do anything other than release a full video of Osama's body (kind of like the Uday and Qusay vids).

Also, this strikes me as largely irrelevant to anything. It's symbolic, sure, but in a week we'll remember that we're actually fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and that al-Qaeda hasn't needed Osama for years, if ever.

[WalkerK19]

Anyway, will US finally pull the troop back home soon now?

[MadCatChiken]

Bit silly though, he tried to hide in a place no one would expect (not such a bad idea) but then he build a villa complex with huge 18ft walls and heavy security with few windows and no internet nor phone access.. Kind of stuck out like a sore thumb there.

Oh and heres a picture, seems pretty dead to me..

http://www.indiainside.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-dead-body-pic.jpg

[Mr Carrot]

He was clearly covered by the ISI as there was a Pak Army base 200m away and at some point the facility construction would have been checked given it's size and cost.

Just to clarify the pakistan points, outside of the Tribal border regions, and the extremist dens in the slums AQ, OBL and Wahabism is vastly unpopular in Pakistan, they have had to endure a decade of near civil war with extremist peasants/taliban offshoots in the north and constant terror attacks on the urban middle classes. the reason the ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) supported AQ and OBL is down to their borderline psychotic adherence to the Pakistani strategic depth policy of the 1970s which developed after their beatdown in East Pakistan (now Bengal) by the Indian's. Given the Israel like precarious geographical situation Pakistan found it's self in this led to a devils bargain in the ISI's creation, support and funding of the Taliban in the early 90s and tacit support for AQ in and around the AF/PAK border and Pakistan tribal areas - they needed a strategic area to fall back into if India ever invaded.

It seems ludicrous given the cost they have had to pay for their policy, but swathes of the ISI still adhere to it which is the reason Western Governments seasonally point fingers at Pakistan for being less than helpful, hiding OBL in plain sight is just another example of this (as is smuggling him across the border, supplying IED kits to insurgents etc.), hopefully this clanger, along with the post Mumbai restraint of the Indian's will give the Pakistani Civ Gov the ability to finally give the relevant elements of the ISI the slap they need/deserve.

[WalkerK19]

Regarding that photo, found this also on internet

http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr226/tralala123/fake.jpg

[Goblix]

@WalkerK19
Doubtful. There's still an insurgency we think we need to deal with, as well as establish some form of stable government. The one that's in place is, as I understand, heavily corrupted.

With luck it won't be long now, hopefully al-Qaeda will be demoralized but chances are they're only encouraged by this.

[Mr Carrot]

He was clearly covered by the ISI as there was a Pak Army base 200m away and at some point the facility construction would have been checked given it's size and cost.

Just to clarify the pakistan points, outside of the Tribal border regions, and the extremist dens in the slums AQ, OBL and Wahabism is vastly unpopular in Pakistan, they have had to endure a decade of near civil war with extremist peasants/taliban offshoots in the north and constant terror attacks on the urban middle classes. the reason the ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) supported AQ and OBL is down to their borderline psychotic adherence to the Pakistani strategic depth policy of the 1970s which developed after their beatdown in East Pakistan (now Bengal) by the Indian's. Given the Israel like precarious geographical situation Pakistan found it's self in this led to a devils bargain in the ISI's creation, support and funding of the Taliban in the early 90s and tacit support for AQ in and around the AF/PAK border and Pakistan tribal areas - they needed a strategic area to fall back into if India ever invaded.

It seems ludicrous given the cost they have had to pay for their policy, but swathes of the ISI still adhere to it which is the reason Western Governments seasonally point fingers at Pakistan for being less than helpful, hiding OBL in plain sight is just another example of this (as is smuggling him across the border, supplying IED kits to insurgents etc.), hopefully this clanger, along with the post Mumbai restraint of the Indian's will give the Pakistani Civ Gov the ability to finally give the relevant elements of the ISI the slap they need/deserve.

[No Surrender]

I don't usually quote the Vatican, with the whole "not being Christian" thing and all, but I thought that their statement was pretty poignant:


Spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that while Christians "do not rejoice" over a death, it serves to remind them of "each person's responsibility before God and men."

"Osama bin Laden, as everyone knows, had the grave responsibility of having spread division and hate among people, causing the deaths of an innumerable number of people and exploiting religion for these purposes," he said.

The Vatican has often condemned the concept of violence in God's name.

Lombardi also said the Vatican hoped that the death of bin Laden "would not be an occasion for more hate, but for peace."
The incursion into Pakistan was of dubious legality, though having the Pakistanis give their retroactive consent makes it a bit better. Though, to be honest, it would be diplomatic suicide not to. It's kind of like when the Israelis kidnapped Adolf Eichmann from Brazil. Sure it was technically illegal but no one was really going bat for him for fear of being labeled a Nazi sympathizer.

[sporty]

Yup, that picture is shopped (you can also find the original on the web, if you can't tell by the pixels already). Probably the reason why no reputable source used it ;)

There's little reason to believe he's still alive though. Fabricating the whole story would be disastrous if uncovered, not even the current benefits could justify such a risk. They may not be able to provide pictures or the body, but they're quite sure he's dead.

[Octopus Rex]

So I guess the US/west in general will have to find another pantomime villain for its populace to rally against in the perpetual war on terror. Shouldn't be too hard.

Also, that photo was quite obviously a photoshop job. I didn't need to see the second picture to realise it. The fidelity of the beard is different from the fidelity of the rest of the shot. And his head looks all wonky and fucked up too.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Very curious that this happened when Obama was low in the polls!

I'm just asking questions people, don't shoot the messenger.

P.S. Hilarious video croaxleigh. ^^

[reki]

Gaddafi maybe? The picture I saw was different to that one, but could also be fake I guess.

[Commander ASOP]

Glad he is dead his death by a western power was necessary if he had evaded capture until natural causes took him it would have been seen as a failure to bring one of the worst criminals ever to justice. Now as for the real impact I think it would be like finding and killing hitler in 1952. Important but not really a game changer. I feel the many movements occuring in the arab world are much more relevant to where this part of the world is heading than the death of a washed up terrorist. The fact that the people in these countries see protest and resitstance as a viable means of changing the situations in their countries will reduce the number of recruits the terrorist have. While his death is not the end of AQ it may be looked upon as the end of a period of time where the arab world was percived as having a unoffical war with the west and turned to improving the liberties within their own borders.

[NovaBurn]

God damn this is awesome news. I had the biggest fucking grin on my face when I heard the news that this shitbag was finally dead. This is great news. The man deserved worse than death, and times like these I kinda wish there was a hell so he can burn in it.

[AridMonk]

Osama Bin Laden - Hide and Seek Champion '01 - '11

Excellent news, the bank holiday stand in news reporters in the UK were more than a little flustered on the radio this morning! The waiting game for the backlash begins now though, all US and UK embassies around the world are on high alert.

[Stripe7]

#1 down, now they have to police up the pieces. Hopefully they can get a good data dump from the site which will help police up the leaders of the various splinters all over the world. Photo's? They have the wife and son as well as DNA.

[severijn]

So after 18 years of looking around they finally found this guy and his dialysis machine and murdered him in cold blood.

When I saw the videos of people shouting "USA USA USA" while waving flags, I was disgusted that they actually celebrate murder. The same applies to anyone here who is glad they killed him.

Anyway, this changes little. Terrorism will continue and the US will keep on declaring war on those that threaten its economical assets and resources. If anything, this will likely strengthen the terrorists' resolve as their mythical leader has become a martyr in their eyes. The biggest change to come of this is that Obama has gotten a bit more popular. I suppose everyone will realize this as the death of some terrorist in fact did not bring back their loved one.

[Troubleshooter]

Tango down...

[Dooks Dizzo]

I was disgusted that they actually celebrate murder
People do understand that there's a difference between cold blooded murder and engaging a legitimate enemy in war right?

No one is 'celebrating a murder'. They're celebrating a victory in a war. If he hadn't resisted he would have been arrested, tried and exceucuted in a court of law, and people would of celebrated that.

Even your high horse thinks you need to step down.

As for long term....we'll see.

[Harmanoff]

I'll join sev on his high horse i think. People killing each other may or may not be inevitable but celebrating the deed can and should be left out.

[SquidDNA]

I have to concur. This wasn't some military objective that happened to be accompanied by the loss of human life; it was at best a failed attempt to capture, at worst an assassination, of a leader who had long ago turned over the running of his organization to subordinates. It was PR, pure and simple. We didn't weaken our enemies with this strike, if anything we strengthened them. No, this was purely to make ourselves to feel better. It was approval rating, it was morale, it was revenge. If you really feel there's something to celebrate here I think you're not thinking very carefully about the situation. That's not to say that I don't feel the morale boost, certainly I do: hooray for our side. But, what else is there to say. We killed an old man. In the meantime, the movement he engendered burns brighter for his death. gg?

[Maktaka]

If he hadn't resisted he would have been arrested, tried and exceucuted in a court of lawI'm not so sure that could have happened. We saw what happened with Saddam Husein's trial: he used it to fire off attacks at the U.S., our allies, the court trying him, the new Iraqi government, and doing his best to incite violent rebellion against the lot of them, all in a very public and well-broadcast venue. Were Bin Laden to go to trial, he'd do the same, but with much greater effectiveness. Bin Laden has caused quite enough havoc for the U.S. as it is, we really couldn't afford to be providing him an international propaganda generator in the courtroom.

He'd also absolutely have to survive the trial, as the U.S. already has quite an awful track record when it comes to caring for prisoners of war over the last ten years. Bin Laden committing suicide while in prison would have been a big political loss for the U.S., proving it incapable of properly caring for even the most high profile of prisoners as well as letting the U.S.'s most wanted slip through its fingers in the end. So either he goes into the courtroom and uses it to invigorate his followers with political attacks, or he dies in prison and makes a mockery of U.S. attempts to bring him to justice.

No, his death was really the only way this situation could end. The only real question was whether it would be by bomb or bullet.

[Gorb]

I have to concur. This wasn't some military objective that happened to be accompanied by the loss of human life; it was at best a failed attempt to capture, at worst an assassination, of a leader who had long ago turned over the running of his organization to subordinates. It was PR, pure and simple. We didn't weaken our enemies with this strike, if anything we strengthened them. No, this was purely to make ourselves to feel better. It was approval rating, it was morale, it was revenge. If you really feel there's something to celebrate here I think you're not thinking very carefully about the situation. That's not to say that I don't feel the morale boost, certainly I do: hooray for our side. But, what else is there to say. We killed an old man. In the meantime, the movement he engendered burns brighter for his death. gg?I would agree that this was timed as a publicity stunt, however that doesn't mitigate the impact that Osama's death (I keep on typing Obama, this is what reading GD regularly does to me :|) could or might have. You say that the movement he engendered burns brighter for his death . . . that is always what would happen? Are you suggesting that we should never target leaders of terrorist cells simply because their subordinates twist their deaths into a strange form of martyrdom?

I mean, Osama hiding in the Middle East for 10 years is hardly "carrying out his grand plan against the corrupting influence of the West". It's him hiding because he's scared of dying. Hiding in a mansion. If that doesn't go against what he apparently stood for, I'll eat one of my many hats. Thus, if he is made out to be some kind of martyr, that'll only be because the terrorist cells will spin his death to make it look like he was a martyr.

I for one am happy that the US finally used the intelligence that they had and took him out, and I personally think that even if he isn't really relevant anymore in the greater scheme of things, that's a public figurehead that inspired countless followers gone, for good.

[SpitfireMK461]

I'll join sev on his high horse i think. People killing each other may or may not be inevitable but celebrating the deed can and should be left out.

And celebrating the justice served to the leader of the most notorious terrorist organization in the world - an organization that not only committed the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, but has terrorized the international community all across the globe, focused mainly on muslim nations (something people don't seem to realize)? Is that wrong as well?

However significant Bin Laden still was in AQ, this is a big achievement. I'll leave a couple things here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden

Senior administration officials said the DNA testing alone offered near 100 percent certainty that bin Laden was in fact shot dead. Detailed photo analysis by the CIA, confirmation by a woman believed to be bin Laden's wife on site, and matching physical features like bin Laden's height all helped confirmed the identification.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/obama-to-make-statment-tonight-subject-unknown/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

[Updated 12:27 p.m. ET] Senior defense officials said that for a majority of the 40 minute operation at the Abbottobad compound special operations forces were involved in a firefight - clearing their way through two other floors before they reached Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was not killed until the last five to ten minutes of the firefight, officials said.

Bin Laden and his family lived on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the 3-story building, and those floors were cleared last, the official said. The official says one of bin Laden’s own wives identified his body to U.S. forces, after the team made visual identification themselves.

U.S. forces also recovered what a senior Intelligence official is calling “quite a bit of material.”

“There’s a robust collection of materials we need to sift through, and we hope to find valuable intelligence that will lead us to other players in Al Qaeda," a senior intelligence official said.

The official added a Task Force has been set up “because of the sheer volume of material collected. That material is currently being exploited and analyzed.”


"I've never wished a man dead, but I read some obituaries with great pleasure." - Mark Twain

[TDATL]

They said they have DNS proof.

They tracked his porn downloads. That is the "robust collection of materials" they have to "sift" through. They are using a whole task force to "exploit" and "analyze" the "shear volume of material collected."

This DNA stuff is clearly a typo. We all know the truth

:D

[OhJohnNo]

Sadly that hypothesis falls down at the last hurdle: Bin Laden's abode had no internet connection.

[Mirage Knight]

Sadly that hypothesis falls down at the last hurdle: Bin Laden's abode had no internet connection.

He had two trusted couriers with him at the time, on of them being his oldest son (correct me if I'm wrong about this) and both were killed in the operation. Said couriers were used to help dispatch orders to terrorist cells and outside operatives and bring back information. It was actually a very smart thing for Osama to do and explains further how hard it was to track him down.

CIA taught him well back in the 80's...

[Starblade]

Is that wrong as well?

This is the best way I've seen it summed up and I agree with it: I'm glad Osama Bin Laden is dead. Fuck him. I'm horrified at the innocents we killed and the liberties we gave up on the road to doing it. Feel free to celebrate this occasion but don't forget what we've done either.

[KON Air]

In before new Police state laws to protect you from retaliation.

[Carl]

I'm with Squid: If we'd have done anything but capture him, put him on trial, and then lock him in a nice comfy cell we where in the wrong morally.

If we killed him, eithier an execution upon capture or after a trial, where not better than him, where giving into revenge, where doing to him what he'd do to us in turn, and by doing that we become not only no better, but worse than him. Where not doing it out of any sense of justice, tis isn;t about putting things right, what is done is done and weather we lock him up or kill him the result is the same. Any desire to kill him at that poijt is based entierly on eye for an eye justice, it's about gratifying the whole event for ourselves.

If there is one thing i utterly despise above all else it is the use of petty reasons such as revenge as an excuse to kill. When we do that we become no better than the very people we condem.

[Gorb]

In before new Police state laws to protect you from retaliation.inb4 crazy conspiracy theories that have no point other than to take threads off topic.

Wait.

@ Carl: it was a goddamned firefight. Do you honestly think Osama was going to sit there and let them tie him up peacefully? He was given that option to surrender, I think.

[Benjamin]

I'm disappointed he was killed. I would much rather he was captured and stood trial before an international court, even though he was as guilty as they come and would laud it on the stand. However that was never going to happen since the US doesn't recognise international authority. Same reason Saddam wasn't put before the Hague and stood in that laughable show trial.

The man was a bastard and dug his own grave, but an opportunity missed I feel. Being killed is a bit of an anti-climax. It's just too simple.

This doesn't mean anything, he's only been martyred, you can't kill an ideology. As long as the US continues down a path of it's own self for-filling prophesy of it's foreign policy, Bin Laden's words will resonate with those in the poorest regions of the world and spark something in someone.

I'm in fact I'm worried about any revenge attacks back in London.


Edit: I understand more then anyone that in a contact certain things are possible and you do what is needed to get the job done. I'm expressing my disappointment it went that way, and the opportunity to capture didn't show itself.

Edit2: why does the mobile version of tge forums log me out after every post. Gash!

[SpitfireMK461]

Also @ Carl: According the the WH press conference and happening right now (being done by John Brennan, Homeland Security assistant to the President), the mission was not "Go kill Osama". Preparations were made for capture Osama if the possibility was there. When the SEAL team arrived, though, there was resistance, including by Bin Laden himself. Capture was not an option.

[Carl]

@Gorb: *Sigh* I'm aware it was a firefight. The point i'm making is that people are acting like this is a great thing. It dosen't matter how or why he died ultimatly, the fact that we where unable to bring him in alive is our fualt, our screw up. We knew he was there and we knew he would doubtless put up resistance, so we where, given our capabilities, quite able to put together a plan to bring him in despite that. Eitheir we simply didn't try, or somthing went wrong on site and we got into a situation where some random individual had to make a decishion for himself on the matter becuase it was a him or me moment. Eithier way though on some level, we failed.

This should be a moment where where all saying (proverbiablly), "my god what have we done". Not "hurray hurray the draon is dead". Becuase if we are doing the latter where no better than those we condem.

But i can't help but feel that we didn;t even try. Going in there without a plan to capture him if he did resist is the same as an execution in my mind, because we knew he was going to resist, and didn't even try.

I'm not saying there isn't a time to kill. I'm saying that time comes only after we've tried every possibble meashure to avoid that and where down to a him or me momment, (obviouslly a him or me moment between two political powers is very dfferent than one between two individuals BTW). If we don't try then it's no diffrent than ordering an execution outright. It's just schematics at that point.

[Bonnet]

You are seriously implying that we should take unnecessary risk for US soldiers to ensure that he didn't die? Major news outlets everywhere have reported that orders where to capture him if it did not represent a danger to do so. By all accounts he was shooting back, thats not exactly a low risk situation to try and capture him alive in.

[Shuma]

@Carl:

I honestly don't really care about any of this, but how can you say that the troops didn't even try? hell for all we know the guy shot himself before the soldiers could kill him/capture him.

[Buguba]

It kind of disappoints me that it hasn't been 24 hours and we can all find something to be divisive about.

Yes, Osama Bin Laden was a human being like the rest of us. However, I don't think the celebration here is about the death of a human being; it's the a victory of an ideal. Osama Bin Laden represented an evil threatening peace and prosperity. The victory here is stability over chaos.

I'm well aware that neither the war on terrorism or the world is that cut and dry, but why do we have to automatically assume that the celebration going on is inherently bad? There's a lot of evil in the world , but there's a lot of good too. Yesterday was a landmark in history because it was a blow against a common enemy. It wasn't a landmark because we all got an excuse to shed blood. Why can't we just take a moment to be happy together rather than accusing everyone of evil intent?

If you want to stand on a moral "high ground," then the real enemy here is the animosity that divides people. Osama Bin Laden was an enemy because he provoked division and violence. There's plenty of division in the world to go around without throwing around accusations about why your next-door neighbor is being happy for all the wrong reasons.

[Gorb]

Because this is the Internet, and acting superior over your fellow man by assuming he is a bloodthirsty individual who revels in bloodshed is a great way to win an argument ;)

[citation needed]

[Caesar]

As someone whose father almost died in NYC on 9/11, as someone who knows men and women that died in the WTC attacks: I say good riddance.

[Paladin]

I don't think he "deserved" it, or that we should be gloating about his death, but I am glad he's dead in the same way I'd be glad that a man eating lion had been put down. Which is why I have no problem with assassinations and executions. I completely and totally disagree with doing it to get revenge or justice (One and the same, really), but threat elimination is a valid and logical reason to kill someone.

[Ramrod]

As Pally says, I can't say I share the same emotions with the people who are laughing and cheering, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that the world is better off.

[Shuma]

I'll third that.

[Nurizeko]

God damn this is awesome news. I had the biggest fucking grin on my face when I heard the news that this shitbag was finally dead. This is great news. The man deserved worse than death, and times like these I kinda wish there was a hell so he can burn in it.

Funnily enough I didn't even bat an eyelid when I heard it.

But then Osama has been pretty irrelevant for a while now.

An utterly pointless event really except the US can say it finally got its man.

[Nalkor]

I don't think Osama was really relevant near the end for AQ, but he still ordered the deaths of thousands of innocents. American or not, such an act is unforgivable. Soldiers I can get because they sign up knowing they could die, but men, women, and children just going about their day-to-day lives?

That fucker got off easy if you ask me. Still, there is a special place in Hell for people like him and that brings me so much more comfort.

[Mirage Knight]

While killing Osama hasn't necessarily struck a fatal blow to Al Quaeda, I'm sure it's hurt them a fair bit. The problem that currently exists and will continue to exist is Al Quaeda's decentralized command structure. I think the only way to ultimately slay this hydra is to deny it what it needs to exist: Impoverished, ill-informed, bitter people who see no other alternative to their situation than the one Al Quaeda is all too happy to offer.

You start educating people more and give them a sense of hope that their world can change for the better, you'll start seeing WAY less support for organizations like Al Quaeda.

[Infidelicious]

When did tracking down, and later shooting people who are irrefutably guilty, armed and pose a clear threat to anyone attempting to capture and put them on trial become morally reprehensible?

Considering the US has been trying to put a hellfire through his window or into his cave for the past 9 years, I think it is kind of hilarious to even bother acting like this isn't an "Assassination" and doubly so to be morally outraged that it was one. I'm all for cutting the red tape in this case. A trial would have given him an opportunity to spout more inflammatory bile, been seen as sham by most of the Muslim world, cost millions of dollars as well as endangered the lives of everyone involved. It also would have come to the exact same conclusion as the Navy Seal that pulled the trigger.

[Zug_zug]

So looks like Osamaddon is finally dead. Should we rejoice or feel duped for all these years?


When did tracking down, and later shooting people who are irrefutably guilty, armed and pose a clear threat to anyone attempting to capture and put them on trial become morally reprehensible?

I think the question isn't whether killing him was morally reprehensible.

Look at it this way. The US special forces apparently had the opportunity to apprehend and extradite Osama so that he could be given an official trial in the US. Now why should we want him to have a fair trial? Because there is a lot of questions left unresolved about the 9/11 attacks that its perpetrator in person could have shed some light on. The families of the victims certainly deserve to know how he planned and masterminded this terrorist act, which connections he had at the time, and what motivations he had behind it. Certainly if he's the central lynchpin of the organisation, then his testimony would be helpful in apprehending the remaining members of the organisation who still remain at large. Instead they chose to kill him and throw away his body without a third party (i.e. non-US government) forensics team verifying it did in fact belong to him (allegedly because they wanted to follow an Islamic custom, yeah right)

It all seems like a charade was thrown in order to boost support for an already failing political establishment. Even if the person they murdered was in fact, the big bad himself, it doesn't change the fact that we've spent countless billions and thousands of lives to hunt down a handful of criminals who weren't even residing in the region we've fought in.

[Ten Tigers]

This wasn't a simple murderer. This wasn't a theif. This wasn't a rapist.

This was a man who killed thousands, and taught others to do the same. He wasn't "murdered" so PLEASE, as suggested, get off your high horse. He was a military target who died in a military operation because... GASP! He made himself a military target.

So quit trying to lay a bogus guilt trip on people who are glad that somebody finally reaped that which they have sown.

-besides, don't cry for him. I'm sure he's enjoying his virgins right now. win/win-

[Meyerm]

At last he's dead. I feel there's going to be a successor though.

[Mirage Knight]

Because there is a lot of questions left unresolved about the 9/11 attacks that its perpetrator in person could have shed some light on. The families of the victims certainly deserve to know how he planned and masterminded this terrorist act, which connections he had at the time, and what motivations he had behind it. Certainly if he's the central lynchpin of the organisation, then his testimony would be helpful in apprehending the remaining members of the organisation who still remain at large.

You do realize that the SEAL teams recovered a mass of intel on site, right?


In the operation, U.S. forces recovered "quite a bit of material," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "There's a robust collection of materials we need to sift through, and we hope to find valuable intelligence that will lead us to other players in al Qaeda." A task force has been set up "because of the sheer volume of material collected," the official said. "That material is currently being exploited and analyzed."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.dead/index.html

And on that note, I say good riddance to garbage.

[Infidelicious]

Because there is a lot of questions left unresolved about the 9/11 attacks that its perpetrator in person could have shed some light on. The families of the victims certainly deserve to know how he planned and masterminded this terrorist act, which connections he had at the time, and what motivations he had behind it. Certainly if he's the central lynchpin of the organisation, then his testimony would be helpful in apprehending the remaining members of the organisation who still remain at large.

Because he knows current, relevant information about individuals involved in an operation that occurred almost a decade ago that he has committed to his 60 something year old memory; and would willingly testify, or you know cooperate at all.

[KON Air]

2. He had to be buried within 24 hours, as dictated by his religion. Do you think erecting a grave in the Middle East (or, heaven forbid, America) a good idea? Really?

Then don't erect one in Middle East or America, take it to somewhere it can be identified without doubt and then dispose of it discreetly, when asked to return the body show the middle finger as US of A does all the time. If someone really wants a grave or monument for him, they can still do it without a body anyway.

Edit: Also funny, 9/11 theories, even the batshit crazy ones, cannot be disaproved because the wreckage of Towers happen to be dumped to Ocean. Here waste some of your time with this; "Is there a corelation?"

[Carl]

@Bonnet: depending on how you define risk, yes.

The fact is if they'd planned this right they would have brought all kinds of disabling items with them, Flashbangs spring to mind as one, Smoke grenades would have likewise been helpful, i'm sure the military experts around here can name far more items.

Now maybe they did bring all that and somthing really crazy went down, we just don;t know, but if they didn;t even go in with the planning for trying to bruiing him in alive if he put up a fight, then it was an assassinattion by any other name, because resistance was garunteed and they knew that going in.

@Paladin: I agree and disagree. The key point here is that given the situation and avalibile planning their was no reason short of a mission screw up, (yes i'm familiar with the phrase "no plan survives contact with the enemy", i read a lot of military litriture from past wars and am well aare of how screwy it can get), for them to need to kill him.

If (hypotheticlly), US units in afghanistan had come under attack from enemy combatants in the feild, and they found that these combatants where being directed in detail from a forward command post that had somhow got acess to their com nets, and they fired a missile at that site to eliminate it, and they then found his body in the wreckage. Fair enough. Fortunes of ar. The intelliggance and direction that command post was giving was garunteed to cause deaths on one side or another, by eliminating it you end the battle faster by breaking the enemies morale, thus reducing the losses. Ideially you should go in there and grab all those people in the command centre if posibble via peacful means, but since your unlikliy to have the kind of teams you'd need on hand, in the right place, and with sufficcent inteliggance to pull it off, you take what you can get.

@Nalkor:

I agree, he's kiled countless peole, but thats dosen't give us licence to kill him for it. If we do, where just doing the same thing he is, killing people becuase of what they've done to us. How can we claim he's wrong or evil as a justification for killing him, when killing is what where calling him evil for.

EDIT:

@Buguba: If the celebration was simply about the leader of AQ is no longer a threat e.t.c i'd be fine with it. But most of the celebratory comments focus on the fact that he's dead, and generaly sopecificlly that it's OBL, the fact that he's the AQ leader and this hurts them appears to be taking a backseat.

[Vintage]

Carl you have no idea what being in a firefight is like so I don't think it is fair for you to assume that the Seals could have tried harder at taking him alive.

[TDATL]

I agree, he's kiled countless peole, but thats dosen't give us licence to kill him for it.

Wrong. That is exactly what it does.

[Maktaka]

@Carl It doesn't matter how well trained you are, or how poorly trained the perp is, or how much you might want him alive: the bullets heading your way in a firefight can kill you with just one round. Every cop and soldier in the U.S. is trained that when the target is shooting at you, you shoot to kill. Anything less gets people on your team, and possibly you, killed.

[Nurizeko]

I don't think Osama was really relevant near the end for AQ, but he still ordered the deaths of thousands of innocents. American or not, such an act is unforgivable. Soldiers I can get because they sign up knowing they could die, but men, women, and children just going about their day-to-day lives?

That fucker got off easy if you ask me. Still, there is a special place in Hell for people like him and that brings me so much more comfort.

It's all relative. The US has killed more than its fair share of civilians in attacks ordered on a whim. Frankly civilian death-tolls directly or arguably caused by US actions have long since far out-weighed the death-toll of 9/11.

The West has plenty of blood from men women and children going about their every day lives on their hands.

Is there a special place in hell waiting for us?


Like I said, Osama's death is irrelevant and pointless, it fulfils the criteria for vengeance but little else. Except maybe to cause a slight spike in the terrorist threat.

[Paladin]

@Paladin: I agree and disagree. The key point here is that given the situation and avalibile planning their was no reason short of a mission screw up, (yes i'm familiar with the phrase "no plan survives contact with the enemy", i read a lot of military litriture from past wars and am well aare of how screwy it can get), for them to need to kill him.

If (hypotheticlly), US units in afghanistan had come under attack from enemy combatants in the feild, and they found that these combatants where being directed in detail from a forward command post that had somhow got acess to their com nets, and they fired a missile at that site to eliminate it, and they then found his body in the wreckage. Fair enough. Fortunes of ar. The intelliggance and direction that command post was giving was garunteed to cause deaths on one side or another, by eliminating it you end the battle faster by breaking the enemies morale, thus reducing the losses. Ideially you should go in there and grab all those people in the command centre if posibble via peacful means, but since your unlikliy to have the kind of teams you'd need on hand, in the right place, and with sufficcent inteliggance to pull it off, you take what you can get.
Actually you don't agree with me at all, because my point was that I don't see any reason to try to take him alive. He's a danger to us, we killed him to remove the threat. End of story. Why try to take him alive when that increases the risk to the troops engaging in the operation? Especially when having him as a live prisoner brings us less utility than simply eliminating him?

[TDATL]

The US has killed more than its fair share of civilians in attacks ordered on a whim.

There is a HUGE difference to civilian damage while hitting a military target and targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civilians.

The two actions have nothing in common.

[Nalkor]

@Nurizeko - Doubtful, unless the deaths were done on purpose. Accidents happen in war, and I'm certain the people who cause civilian casualties need to get some kind of therapy when they can manage. If the person is a-okay with civilian deaths, then the military won't be too fond of keeping a potential psycho in their ranks.

Osama had thousands killed out of malice and a deluded fanaticism that even your average Muslim would want him dead for.

Those who feel genuine regret and go to great lengths to make up for those mistakes and try to prevent them from happening again are never in the same boat as Osama Bin Laden. That was just putting words into my mouth, you just put a number of soldiers in the same category, I did not. Please note how I worded my original statement that you brought up.

[Buguba]

If the celebration was simply about the leader of AQ is no longer a threat e.t.c i'd be fine with it. But most of the celebratory comments focus on the fact that he's dead, and generaly sopecificlly that it's OBL, the fact that he's the AQ leader and this hurts them appears to be taking a backseat.
I don't understand how those comments aren't one and the same. The interpretation of the comments is up to you. If you choose to read that people are reveling in violence and bloodshed, then nobody can stop you. If you choose to read that a common enemy of the public has been removed, then that's what you choose to read.

My point was more that it's disheartening to see people always attempting to one-up each other no matter what the case. We can't even agree to be happy about something in similitude. Instead, some people are happy for the right reasons and other people are happy because they're bloodthirsty savages. I don't doubt that some people out there are bloodthirsty, but there's a difference between condemning people that are obviously bloodthirsty and condemning people who are simply celebrating. The difference is what you assume people are thinking. Most of the time that shows more about you than the people you're judging though.


Because this is the Internet, and acting superior over your fellow man by assuming he is a bloodthirsty individual who revels in bloodshed is a great way to win an argument
Liar. The internet is for porn.

[Gorb]

Then don't erect one in Middle East or America, take it to somewhere it can be identified without doubt and then dispose of it discreetly, when asked to return the body show the middle finger as US of A does all the time. If someone really wants a grave or monument for him, they can still do it without a body anyway.

Edit: Also funny, 9/11 theories, even the batshit crazy ones, cannot be disaproved because the wreckage of Towers happen to be dumped to Ocean. Here waste some of your time with this; "Is there a corelation?"1. It was identified. Call bullshit on this all you want, but it happened. Taking it to a SEKKRIT location and identifying it . . . .is exactly what they did. Disposing of it discreetly is what they did - you can't really recover a body from the sea, nomatter what CSI says.

2. The point is that a body where people can reach it is bad. Thus, burying it in soil is bad. Doesn't matter where it ends up, if people can physically find the site then MASS PILGRIMIGE.

3. Theories can be disproved by the genetic confirmation that it was Osama that was killed. The people who propagate those theories will remain crazy and will keep on purchasing their tin foil hats regardless of the amount of "proof" the government provides.

[Nalkor]

@Gorb - I wouldn't be too shocked if some of the larger fish like say, a shark might have went after OBL's corpse almost as soon as it started sinking. A good current and a shark can detect a dead body for miles, and dead bodies don't fight back, making for a very easy meal.

[SPEZZMAREN]

Personally, I dont believe this until I see proof. Pics or it didn't happen.

[SpitfireMK461]

I agree, he's kiled countless peole, but thats dosen't give us licence to kill him for it. If we do, where just doing the same thing he is, killing people becuase of what they've done to us. How can we claim he's wrong or evil as a justification for killing him, when killing is what where calling him evil for.

No, there is absolutely no comparison. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda intentionally perpetrated the murder of thousands of innocent civilians all around the world purely for the sake of killing innocent civilians. What happened yesterday was the killing of a mass murderer who had not a single shred of innocence. There is no comparison.

[Carl]

Buguba: They';re not the same becuase on'e focusing on the individual, the others is focusing on what is an arbitary concept, allmost an object, everyone seems to be focusing on the fact that is OBL, the act that it's ptentiolly hurt AQ e.t.c. seems to be getting lost in the mess. Some of the comments aren't helping that impreshion. There's a lot of venom in them and a lot of "He got hat he deserved" going around.

@Paladin: The diffrancee here then i guess boils down to the fact that regardless of what somone has done i do not belive we have the right or the obligation to kill simply because somones a danger. Only when they give us no other choice right at the moment the trigger, (or whatever methjod is involved), do i consider it accepptable.

@Maktaka: Please i'm getting tiered of being treated like an idiot. No i don;t have personol expiriance, but what i do know is that in a firefight between an elite special forces team and rag bag terrorrists, the advatage is virtually allways with the elite team by dint of their better gear and training, their still in considrable danger, but it's far less than the other side. At that point applying non-lethal methods might increase the risk of losses to them, but it dosen't garuntee them, on the other hand it has an extremly high probability of reducing otherwise certian deaths on the other side. Thats a fair tradeoff in my mind. It only stops being a fair tradeoff when it hits the point of near garunteed higher losses from trying it.

If this turns out to be a case of them walking into a room, telling him hes captured and he still tries to shoot and they're forced to fire back because they don't have time to use any of their non-lethal they brought with them. Fair play, same with a random stray bullet or other acciddent.

But if it turns out out they where sent in with orders to kill if he resisted, then as far as i'm concered it amounts to nothing more or less than an execution played as a mock capture and the people behind, (mainly the people giving out the orders, i don't feel it would be fair to expect the SEAL's to ignore orders here), are no better than the man they just killed.

I may think very littile of Osama, (Scum to be scraped of my boot metaphoriclly speaking), but when it comes down to hujan life i value his no less than i do somone i'd put up on a pedestal as a paragon of goodness. I don;t de-value or up value peoples lives based on how good or bad i feel they are.

[Gorb]

"rag bag terrorists"

Mm-hm. They probably have more experience and training in using firearms than you ever will, Carl. Don't underestimate them.

[Infidelicious]

Carl:

Regardless of how stacked the situation is in favor of the US forces why would they even the odds by using Less than Lethal means?

(Which are fully capable of killing people on accident, especially OLD MEN IN FRAIL HEALTH)

Why waste highly trained assets with families on a sack of shit that would have been executed in a year anyways.

[Black]

I am pruning this thread of posts I think are irrelevant to constructive discussion. After this point please refrain from empty one-liners.

[Meyerm]

@Everyone- Can't we all just agree to disagree? Everyone has their opinions and thoughts on the death of Bin Laden, and It's impossible to make everyone agree with one person's views. This started out as a thread that was simply bringing forward breaking news to share with everyone, and has turned into a debate that's getting us nowhere. You have ideas and views with legit reasons to believe those, and I respect that. It seems though everyone is shooting down everyone else's thought with their own.

[Paladin]

@Paladin: The diffrancee here then i guess boils down to the fact that regardless of what somone has done i do not belive we have the right or the obligation to kill simply because somones a danger. Only when they give us no other choice right at the moment the trigger, (or whatever methjod is involved), do i consider it accepptable.
You are correct, we disagree on that point. If we were discussing a domestic matter, involving the police force (Not the military), and a US citizen, I would agree with you. But we are not, and as such we have no obligation to go to any sort of heroic lengths to attempt live capture.

But I also support capital punishment for (Duly tried and convicted) citizens, with the same rationale... Mad dogs must be put down.

[Mr Carrot]

Nuri, the US's inability to find OBL has been a HUGE propoganda coup for AQ for a decade. His ability to keep out of the clutches of the US has not only provided 'proof' of his divine support from Allah but also allowed AQ propoganda to write off the death of most of it's middle ranking officers over the last decade.

Yes he is now a martyr BUT he was a living symbol of a skewered AQ superiority over the mighty US war machine. Don't underestimate his potential as a recruiting and motivational mechanism when he remained uncaptured. If he had died peacefully free then this could have been perpetuated ad infinitum. Matyrs are a lot less useful than someone who could legitimately claim to his followers as having been blessed by Allah.

On a side note as someone who almost got splashed on 9/11 (and lost 28 family friends) and 7/7 you couldn't stop me from shooting him and I am a mild mannered product of a classical education (who lost his rag in bloody OTC simunition training), I don't imagine how you could even begin to reign in some highly trained, testosterone fueled cro magnum man mountain from not slotting him in a firefight.

Complete lack of perspective on the idea of a non-lethal takedown here, it's at the same level as "why didnt swat shoot the gun out of his hand?" a complete and utter failure to understand either the mechanics of combat and the responsibilities of an officer to not risk his men's lives pointlessly. Imagine having to be the one to write the letter to Pvt. Jone's wife after he was slotted by a tooled up Bin Laden because it was important to take one of the most vile human beings in the world alive to put on trial... because?

I really really don't understand this triete moral highground attempt in parts of the press and on here - this man was your enemy. No matter whether or not you want to believe that or not, he was at war with YOU. He was not some distant tinpot dictator who targetted his own people and as such we can dispassionately judge them via a third party supranational mechanism and pat ourselves on the back for our moral fortitude because in the end he wasn't trying to kill you are your countrymen so its easy to maintain an ultra detached perspective. Mainly that we lose the detached definition between someone being a bad person for humanity in general and someone being an enemy to me/us. In a war we get to go kill our enemies, it's part of the deal.

I have absolutly no reason to believe the Whitehouse PR fluff that this was not a close to contact, indeintfy and assassinate mission. this is a man we have dropped several dozen tonnes of hi-ex trying to kill when we could have tried to capture him before (the Viper Pass ambush for instance, troops were actually pulled back so they could drop fires on the convoy), it also seems to counter the initial reports coming from the Pentagon. It's just the Obama Government's sensibilities in action. The semi-official reports which will be out in a few years and the censored shite that might wind up on my desk should confirm this. The US had NOTHING to gain by taking him alive apart from appeasing the same group of people who think killing is never justified, no matter who it is.

The person who ordered the kill shot or took it at his own volition, on Bin Laden is not only better than Bin Laden he is a hero.

[Remmington]

Personally?, Glad hes dead, Happy for the US Army to score some plus points with the world.

But killing Bin Laden isn't exactly going to stop Al-Qaeda. Sure, he got his just desserts. But at the end of the day, Someone will step up and take his place.

The organisation has grown to be bigger with him.

But glad hes gone. Now get rid of Gadafi and Castro and we'll be sorted.

[scoiatollo]

I fail to see how shooting an old man makes you a hero... Certainly I don't mind Osama being shot but lynching him doesn't make us better than him...

[Mr Carrot]

At what point is OBL just an old man? He was my enemy, his movement and plans tried to kill me, members of my family and friends repeatedly (quite literally and to differeng levels of succes).

The person who killed him is my hero because he killed my enemy.

It's like saying Hitler was just a rubbish Austrian painter. Or Pol Pot was a dyslexic who fundementally failed at reading comprehension. At what point do we attribute the correct titles to these people instead of underplaying just how horrid they really were?

Killing your enemey in war is what you have to do. Jesus christ, it's not like he was a US/EU citizen who was slotted by some vigilante justice, he was an enemy combatant killed in a military action.

I cannot for the life of me even relate to the mindset of people who play the 'it makes us no better than them card' during a COMBAT OPERATION against people who are ACTIVELY PLOTTING TO KILL THEM. It's not just a logical fallacy but it is borderline emotionally autistic. It makes us better than them/him because he was trying to kill you for being you, and we had a legitimate grevience and self interest in stopping him from doing that anymore. Oh and a spot of glorious vengence.

[FriendlyFire]

The holier than thou attitude is very popular because it lets you feel better about yourself by dragging down others on matters where you often don't have much of an opinion.

I, for one, am most glad they've got him down. It might not do much, but it's still a good thing that had to be done, and much better than the alternatives of A) him dying in a cave and worldwide armies wasting money to find him when he's already dead or B) him dying of old age in a mansion somewhere in total comfort. When you do crimes against humanity, you should pay for them.

[dd14]

When I was told about Osama's death, I didn't believe it at first, and even after it was confirmed by the news, I didn't really care. I was certainly happy for the families of 9/11 and all those who have been affected by the war as they at least get some amount of closure, but in reality it's just one man. The bigger picture here is terrorism, and terrorism will continue with or without him. He wasn't like Hitler in that he was leading an actual military or country who would have surrendered without his leadership, Osama is just an asshole who was a member of a group of evil assholes, and there's more than one group too. So really nothing is going to change.

Having said that, I'm glad he's dead. He deserved to die in my opinion. He didn't deserve trial, he forfeited that right the second he decided to set in motion a plan which would kill thousands of innocent people based on the simple criteria that they were innocent and American.

EDIT: I replied just a little too quick and let my emotions get the better of me, so I apologize to anyone I may have offended in my original post. It was a poor choice of words.

[KON Air]

1. It was identified. Call bullshit on this all you want, but it happened. Taking it to a SEKKRIT location and identifying it . . . .is exactly what they did. Disposing of it discreetly is what they did - you can't really recover a body from the sea, nomatter what CSI says.

2. The point is that a body where people can reach it is bad. Thus, burying it in soil is bad. Doesn't matter where it ends up, if people can physically find the site then MASS PILGRIMIGE.

3. Theories can be disproved by the genetic confirmation that it was Osama that was killed. The people who propagate those theories will remain crazy and will keep on purchasing their tin foil hats regardless of the amount of "proof" the government provides.

I didn't suggest anything can recovered from sea, take your chill pill, that is exactly what I said. By dumping the body into sea all evidence you have is just a bad photoshop from a tabloid, a source half the world doesn't trust and your guts.

All the evidence that could prove this was anything more then a PR stunt is probably eaten by fish now. So, I just don't really how you try to make yourself belivie in it.

[Mac_Bug]

because all Osama has to do is to make another video saying he's not dead?

[-Str!ker-]

As much fun as people have with conspiracy theories, I'm not really sure this is one to pursue. While I am not a huge fan with all of the President's policies, people claiming this was set up to boost polls is wrong. Political history aside, I do trust Obama not to pull something like a conspiracy off for ratings and give him credit for ordering the mission. For me however, the real credit goes to the military and intelligence communities who worked for years unrewarded to get to this point.

I honestly believe that AL Qaeda will never be the same, the chances of them finding someone else with money and as much of an icon to them I rather slim. Plus there is the factor of while OBL could run, in the end we got him. Groups like AQ need a strong figure head to succeed and we have shown the ability to take those leaders down. Selecting new leadership will be like voting for who wants a SEAL team kicking down their door. :)

How much of a stink do you think the Pakistan government will put up over this? From what I hear on various radio stations and articles, this was not an approved operation of Pakistan so we violated their sovereignty, though I agree it was for the right reasons.

[DeafMute]

I'm not 100% on this tbh. Call me crazy but it does seem very convienant for obama =/.
What would settle it for me would be a good picture.
Its just so strange how the seal team goes in, bam headshot then chuck him in the sea because no other nation wants him. Yes I know hes muslims so hes to be buried within 24 hours but damn did it even pass 6hours before he was gone? Please tell me someone got a picture of him, hell everyone has camera phones surly one of the seals members whipped one out and snapped a pic. Its apart of history right?

I want Osama dead but I just want more solid proof, not some prick in a suit telling me they have DNA.

[scoiatollo]

So carrot just because someone has not your citizenship makes him "less" of a human being? That's an interesting view considering that not even 7decades ago people that imo were worse than Osama had a trial before they were killed (Nürnberger trials, Eichmann trial).

As said Osama deserved to die, just that the circumstances should (or rather must) have been different.

[General Nuke Em]

If you think for a second that wouldn't have dropped nukes on Berlin to take out Hitler, Goring, and friends instead of parading them around at Nuremburg, think again.

Also, see the fate of Isoroku Yamamto.

[Paladin]

People who aren't citizens aren't less of a human being, but the government doesn't have the same responsibilities towards them as it does its own citizens.

[Nalkor]

I think Osama ceased being a human being and was more of a monster that just looked like a human a long time ago. Feeling proud and encouraging the deaths of thousands of innocents who merely have a different belief than you do shows how little humanity you really have.

[Paladin]

Feeling superior to even the lowest of your fellow men is a dangerous trap.

[scoiatollo]

I may be mistaken but doesn't the human right declaration say that EVERYONE deserves a fair trial? I get it he was a terrible person but he's still a human ergo should be treated like one under the same principles we've built our democracies on. Also I am not here to judge taking him down during the operation if he decided to fight back, shit like that happens, I am just shocked by the response some people are showing in here...

[Troubleshooter]

I may be mistaken but doesn't the human right declaration say that EVERYONE deserves a fair trial?

I'm certain that if UBL had turned himself in to the authorities, he would have gotten a fair trial. He didn't, he's dead, don't see the conflict.

[scoiatollo]

Me neither, as I've said I am astonished by the reactions to his death, practically undercutting one of the core principles in our democracies...

[Mr Carrot]

Enemies of the state enter into a legal grey area as no one is declaring war anymore but no he doesnt get a default free civil trial, he would be a captured enemy combatant involved in plotting acts of sedition and terror on the US and it's allies, out of uniform and guilty of numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity. As the US is not a signatory of the ICC Charter then it would have the full range of US Federal and State legal apparatus available to it, running from a summary military trial in theatre under war powers, which can lead straight to execution to a Civil criminal trial in a US State (presumably with death penalty).

Now executing him whilst surrendering would be a breech of the Geneva Convention by the individuals involved, which would be impossible to bring forward as the enemy in this war is not a state actor and cannot win and thus force chrages NOT some tangental attack on the freedoms of the West.

He didn't get the right to anything when he entered into a defacto state of war with the US in the late 90s. The problem is as a non-state actor it's easy to get lost in moral quandries but at no point is a core principle of the West being undercut. We are in a state of de facto war against the AQ organisation, recognised by the UN, AQ and the AQ leadership have not surrendered, (unlike the Nazis at the end of WW2, but even then thousands of ranking Nazis were summirarily executed by the USSR well before Nuremburg) - they do not regain the legal protection of international criminal law or US treaty obligations UNTIL they comply to the stated US surrender demands.

Otherwise every time we dropped a bomb on the Nazis/Taliban etc. we should be arresting them or not doing it at all. At the heart of it Osama is the head of the AQ C2 structure, even if less active since 2001. Assassination is a completely legitimate military tactic and valid political goal, it's just a bit tasteless.

But yes depending on your country of origins legal code it does make them less of a legal entity, and thus manifesting less of the rights provided to domestic individuals etc. Some nations like the UK chose to undermine this with he 1998 Ascension to the ECHR but even then that is founded on a belief of equality that does not stack up against practicalities of reality.

[Carl]

@Infidelicious: See my reply to paladin in the post you where replying, and in response to your last point, see my first post in the thread.

@Paladin: I may disagree vehemently with you, but I can respect your position a lot more than I can everyone else’s. This is a position based on a solid logical argument, weather or not either of us accepts it is ultimately down to a choice based on our personal morals.

@FF: This isn't about sitting on a high horse. Whilst I’ve never been in, nor expect to be in, (for example), a situation involving two or more parties shooting it out, I’d be deeply disappointed and upset with myself if I didn’t do everything I possibly could to keep the deaths down on both sides. Obviously I can't say how I’d react in such a situation, I’ve never been there, the worst I’ve had is a near miss while pulling a littlie girl from in front of a speeding car, the two don't really compare. The Key point though is, I wouldn't ask anything of them that I wouldn't expect of myself. That wouldn’t be fair and would indeed be sitting on a high horse in my mind.

[Commander ASOP]

Really killing him lowers us to his level really. I think it is terrific that people can have the view that anything but capture and a trial for this thug means the west has commited an act of barbaric nature. I am glad that in your warm cozy safe little homes you feel safe enough to take the moral high ground. That such acts of brutality are necessary for you to be able to have these views must not trouble you at all.

[Carl]

That such acts of brutality are necessary for you to be able to have these views must not trouble you at all.

I don;t belive they are in this case, and in far too manyu other cases, we use the ends justify the means as a way to make it feel right to us.

[Sparki]

I was not able to watch or hear much about the process of his assassination. Neither do I know if they (US Seals, whomever) actually even considered using non-lethal equipment.

It is sad indeed that the world was cheering a man´s death, but I guess this is just a reaction of human glee/schadenfreude. I only hope that the thousands of US troopers and civilian losses were actually worth it in the end.

sarcasm:
If they were insisting to kill OBL stylish, they could have at least captured him, bring him to ground zero and just drop him off. Let the New York people have a word with him...
/sarcasm

[Mr Carrot]

Would you not cheer at the news that someone who had murdered your friends or family had been killed in a prison fight? The scale of the murders was large enough to affect quite a cross section of blue collar and affluent middle class America millions have a personnal connection to this.

There is nothing wrong or inhumane to celebrate the defeat of your enemies. Be it the events of a couple days ago or VE Day, its a logical release of tension. It's rather human. It is however in-human to project an overly pious sanctimonious holier than thou attitude about the whole thing which is created by actively suppressing empahty to/with the American people and the millions around Europe and the rest of the world who have been directly affected by AQ's actions.

[scoiatollo]

Carrot I am not arguing that this isn't legal, I am talking about moral! How can we demand what we consider as the right behavior from others when we don't live by the same standards? That's like me demanding that everyone should go vegan while eating a steak... Seriously take a step back and look at what you are cheering about and what methods you consider as right... We are talking about murder here no matter if legally correct or if a long trial would have found him guilty anyway.

[Sabulum]

Is there even any information as to whether he could have been taken alive? You're just slapping murder on this but that doesn't seem to describe what happened at all. I assume taking him alive would have been the preferable option, but even then holding such an iconic terrorist leader might have had huge ramifications for Americans abroad if Al-Qaeda or affiliates had tried to get hold of hostages to swap with him. Fuck me if one of my friends gets taken hostage in the ME because we wanted to put Osama on trial or if I was one of the family members of a strike team member who got shot by Osama trying to restrain him.

That said, you're completely blowing the hit our democratic principles are going to take by killing a mass murderer in an assault like this out of proportion. The dude was straight up evil and at the very least one of the US' biggest security threats.

[Mr Carrot]

I am cheering that a man who had plotted to kill me twice (I was in the target personnel bracket and area for 9/11 and 7/7) was killed in a military operation designed to kill an enemy of the West who was in hiding and had refused legitimate national and supra-national surrender terms.

I am completely morally in the right.

We are not talking about murder, you have to peform such moral and ethical gymnastics to reach that point, given we are at war you are verging on borish pedantry in an attempt to portray an event you see personally as wrong in anyway relating to legal or associated non-legal definitions of murder.

This is no different to me celebrating had Hitler been shot in his bunker by the Soviets. This is no more murder then it would have been splashing him with a drone strike. This was all about getting eyes on target and retrieving the corpse.

For the record given the de facto state of war we entered into after 9/11 I do not consider the deaths in Madrid, Bali or London morally murder, though still clearly abhorent and vastly objectionable. Similarly if we had walked up to him in 1993 wen he was just being a windbag and shot him that would have been state sanction murder there are thresholds you can cross morally, legally and ethically given context and circumstance.

[scoiatollo]

So what's your word for what happened? Murder is drastic I know but in the end that's what you are so happy about. The death of an old man, good job! As said I understand the feeling of relief, to a certain extend the satisfication you get from that. What I can't understand and tolerate is the attitude some are showing towards humans (no matter if he's a saint or a massmurderer) and towards democracy...

Edit: again cheering shooting hitler would have been equally wrong. Human life is human life and we should operate on that basis. Besides from what I remember you can only start a war against a country, not an organisation let alone a single man...

[Nanaki]

So what's your word for what happened? Murder is drastic I know but in the end that's what you are so happy about. The death of an old man, good job! As said I understand the feeling of relief, to a certain extend the satisfication you get from that. What I can't understand and tolerate is the attitude some are showing towards humans (no matter if he's a saint or a massmurderer) and towards democracy...

What does democracy have to do with anything? Or are you just throwing that in for extra effect?

[scoiatollo]

Democracies work under the assumption that all humans are equal. Shooting someone without a trial, calling for an assassination, saying that he does not deserve a trial you are basically saying that not all humans are equal.

[Sabulum]

All citizens of a democracy are equal maybe, but Osama wasn't a citizen by any stretch of the imagination. And honestly calling him just an old man is a slap in the face that's pretty offensive and morally wrong in my eyes.

[scoiatollo]

So what's the difference between a human living inside a democracy and someone who doesn't? All humans are equal! Arguing against that turned out pretty devastating in the past...

[Mr Carrot]

No they dont.

At all.

Most of them assume that CITIZENS are equal under the law. Just by dint of treating citizens and non-citizen differently, domestically or in response to foreign affiars (why do we evacuate our citizens before the local sick and children?) - there is an express value placed upon the citizen which the non-citizen does not have hence an inequality. Equality outside of policy is fluff and rhetoric until that value is shifted to an equal basis. By the ability of our action and volition to make war on another nation or group (but not inetnerally within our own nation except under the most extreme circumstances) we are making a decleration of that value differential.

Recent trends on global humanism within the EU are nothing to do with democracy but the nascient socialism that drives Euro federalisation - socialism does not equal democracy.


You are comprehensively failing to understand what it is to a. have an enemy and b. by proxy defeat/kill them. As such you are failing to understand the psychological elation that is brought with such an event. You are also failing to understand the nature of armed conflict and the necessary (and biologically catered for) steps in othering of enemy identity.

The reality is we spend most of our time trying to sidestep human nature because it doesnt function well in large organised society - that is that the reality is not all humans are equal. When you fight a war you are actually giving a violent and express decleration of your superirority of ideology, belief, martial prowess, intellect etc. you by dint of arms and intelligence prove your superirority.

If he had met the surrender criteria then he would have deserved a trial as mandated by international treaties that the US is a signatory of. But he didnt, thus his assassination by military means is not just valid, it is necessary. The men who undetook this mission then become heroes through the action of killing the leader of the enemy - this is how history functions no matter whether or not they bring about change.

Braon von Staffenburg is viewed as a hero, even in the west, for trying to kill Hitler, even though he failed. Heroes are made by actions, and even though this is a relatively easy action when compared to what normally grants heroism in the context of Grecco-Romano traditions still expressed in modern western culture - the importance of this simple action escelates it up the chain of heroism.

[GeoffS]

We are talking about murder here no matter if legally correctSince murder is defined as the intentional unlawful killing of another person, if it is legally correct it can not possibly be murder. Trying to equate the death of somebody in a military firefight with murder is ridiculous.

[scoiatollo]

No I think you are failing to understand that I am okay with him being shot in attempt to capture him (again capturing alive would have been better) I am against that cold blooded nature some are showing here. Either you accept that all humans are equal and should be treated under the same laws, or you say that humans aren't equal giving extremists like nazis, kkk and such a legitimation for their weird believes...

Edit: geoff as said it is an extreme word for it, but I lack a better one for it.

[Mirage Knight]

I think Osama ceased being a human being and was more of a monster that just looked like a human a long time ago.

That's a rather dangerous train of thought there. Turn bin Laden into a monster and you deny the fact that another human being can ever be that twisted and attain the power and influence that bin Laden had. Look up bios on Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin for reference.

I'm saddened that lives were taken in this operation because I do value life, but it's the sadness I feel when I hear about a vicious or rabid animal being put down to protect the lives of others.

[Mr Carrot]

Socatollo human beings are not equal either biologically or through the lottery of birth nationally thats the critical point - equality is a legal assumption some nations chose to make for ideological purposes it is not a universal truth, it just happens to be that the pursuit of equality has led to a desireable outcome for civilisation hence why we espouse its virtues.

All humans should be treated under the laws that cover them, we do not have an infaliable global legal system and until we do we will not have true equality ironically you are continuing to ignore the fact that Osama decided step outside the existing global legal framework by a. starting a non-state open war against Western citizenry and b. being in a state of war is subject to a completely different set of national and international legal remits that differ from each of the militaries persecuting action.

The KKK et al can use this to justify whatever they want but they are not argument for a rational approach to global geo-politics or history. That is your ignoring the legal realities of the situation (which is that it's legal to do this under US Articles of War for the people who are undertaking the action) because we are cosseted in the 21st century to think that we should have an imperetive to reasoned debate and trial rather than an imperetive to win. The military by its very nature is set to largely ignore this social nicety because it gets in the way of its effective institutional functioning.

the transnational humanist rhetoric from democracies which sprouted up in the post WWII era was a direct answer to the growing political force of international socialism which espoused equality as a core principle, not because it has an innate place in all democracy. The rheotirc of global equality is not part of the US constitution, it is part of the US response to Communism built upon the foundations of international solidatory needed to move the US from it's isolationist stance during WWII.

The US government, law, and it's culture does not treat non-citizens as equals. No matter what they espouse. That is a political reality. The US would cease to exist if it legally treated foreign nationals as equal to it's own citizens (again Europe is taking it in the arse hard from its attempts to enact even a measure of global equality of law).

They certainly do not extend the courtesies of US citizenship to avowed enemies of the state. To possit that they should is ludicrous and born presumably from inate desire to see the end of Western Civilisation due to its inability to prioritise between its own agenda and a 'global' agenda.

[scoiatollo]

So how many africans/asian/etc. is your life worth if humans are not equal? Sorry I'll just stop arguing with you here because it literally sickens me if someone thinks he's better than someone else based on race/religion/ethnity...

[Mr Carrot]

How dare you attempt to misconstrue my words as crass racism. There is a vast gulf between the politcal ideology of equality that all people should be TREATED equally and the biological realities of being a higher order species. Of course we are not all biologically equal it's utterly absurd to even suggest that you are not objectively superior in nearly every rational biological metric to some poor child born without limbs, sensory organs or a fully functioning brain. Or even something as basic as being faster or smarter than someone else. Meritocracy anchored by social and legislative frameworks (be they taxes or equality legislation) is actually the state we inhabit. The law treats you the same (in most cases), nature clearly does not. the KKK and Nazism is an expression of differing understandings of social darwinism originating in the 19th century, as much as they are misrepresentations and as much based on psuedo science and superstition than actual reational scientific explanation This differential is extended into the lottery of birth as to what nation you pop out in, the institutions and civic codes you face, the advantages and protection you are given.

It's not about being better its about acknowledging realites, its about how your government treats you vs. someone who is not from your country as a legal entity. To my government my life is intrinsically worth more than a non-citizen for a variety of reasons, this is better expressed in the modern era by the US and France, but go back 30 years and the UK would have been no different. Until that metric of government worth is shifted, there is no such thing as equality between a citizen and non citizen. Given the complete failure of the EU in attempting to create a workable mechanism for such a thing via the ECHR (which usually leads to an exploitation of member states as non-citizens leverage the citizens social and welfare advantage through said legal mechanisms) this rebalance is not going to happen anytime soon.

And the clash of civilisations proves which religions/cultures/beliefs are more... useful.... in the grandscheme of things not what I or you think but those things are rational or irrational human choices - outside of ethnicity - and have absolutly nothing to do with actual workable constructs of equality which is based on humanism or varrying interpretations of the state of nature .

I was simply trying to explain to you the political and historical processes which have resulted in global expressions of equality and how they do not exactly line up with legislation nor the actions of governments. which are right now exploiting other people, who are not legally your equal, for your benefit. How horrifying.

Go dry your eyes and actually look at how the world works.

This is why some US Navy SEALS can stroll off a helicopter unnaounced in a third world shithole and shoot 'an old man' in the head instead of arresting him and putting him on trial. This is not only the very expression of global inequalities of power, law and martial prowess. But the legitimisation of it.

[Carl]

Is there even any information as to whether he could have been taken alive? You're just slapping murder on this but that doesn't seem to describe what happened at all. I assume taking him alive would have been the preferable option, but even then holding such an iconic terrorist leader might have had huge ramifications for Americans abroad if Al-Qaeda or affiliates had tried to get hold of hostages to swap with him. Fuck me if one of my friends gets taken hostage in the ME because we wanted to put Osama on trial or if I was one of the family members of a strike team member who got shot by Osama trying to restrain him.

That said, you're completely blowing the hit our democratic principles are going to take by killing a mass murderer in an assault like this out of proportion. The dude was straight up evil and at the very least one of the US' biggest security threats.


*Sigh* i thought i'd covered this twice. If it actually turns out to be a case of they went in with non-lethal methods of subduing armed resistance and details of the situation genuinlly preveted them from employing them. Then well my stance wills till be "it was wrong, we screwed up", but it will also at the same time be accepptable.

I'm also not really bothered about the whole democratic principles things.

@Carrot: So what. i know how the world works i just don;t belive that because of that we don;t have a morale obligation to hold ourselves to the same standards by which we judge our enemies. Thats why i can consider viloent acts accepptablle, yet still wrong e.t.c. If we have to kill anyone to achive our aims, no matter how much we where unable to prevent it, then on some level we have failed to uphold the morale standards we hold so dear.

For that very reason i feel that the use of the military in afghanistan and iraq, beyond the initial invashions was wrong, (i'm not exactly in favour of the invashions eithier). Ideally we should be sending in dedicated trained peackeeping forces. Keeping the peace and arbitarlly killing those breaking it are two diffrent things, to quote you:


The military by its very nature is set to largely ignore this social nicety because it gets in the way of its effective institutional functioning.

The fact is a military force is a very bad one for a peacekeeping oporation. It's meant for a war, and whatever bush Jr may like to spout, it was never a war, they're a terorist organisation, a particuarly large one with a rather high tempo of oporations yes, but never anything more. The problem is your average terrorist is rather beyond the abilities of the police to handle, and it's impractical as a rule to create a tottally seperate middle ground orginisation to handle this kind of thing. Dosen't effect the fact that the military mindset is far from ideally suited to this kind of thing. Just look at what hapenned on bloody sunday in ireland when we sent in troops without the extra training to handle that kind of situation.



This is why some US Navy SEALS can stroll off a helicopter unnaounced in a third world shithole and shoot 'an old man' in the head instead of arresting him and putting him on trial. This is not only the very expression of global inequalities of power, law and martial prowess. But the legitimisation of it.

No it's just a sign of how littile our morales really matter to most of us.

[SPEZZMAREN]

Any space left on that high horse?
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." - Martin Luther King, Jr
As a teenager living in Britain, i'm disgusted that people celebrate the death of a man like this. Its perfectly acceptable to think "I'm glad he's dead." much as I did, but another to chant anthems and wave flags. Not too long ago, in a little place called Germany, people did this when a man announced he would murder and oppress jews. The modern world just gets me down.

Now, onto the jokes:
?2 wars, trillions of dollars, thousands of troops killed and they finally find Osama Bin Laden.

...In his house.

They searched caves for about 15 years before finding out he was living in a fat ass mansion right outside pakistan, how did they miss that?

[Mr Carrot]

Which peacekeeping operation? Afghanistan is anti-terror, anti-narco, COIN and nation building, peace keeping is an element of the prcess but I think you are getting muddle up with Kosovo etc. There is a significant multinational force in Afghanistan and some forces like the US Stryker brigades and UK forces can dual role down to very low intensity peacekeeping ops. some... can't quite as well as you say the bloody sunday situation. But the standard of general soldiery and peace keeping outside of a few exceptions is utterly outstanding throughout the NATO orbat. Dedicated trained peace keeping forces have been completely shredded and next to useless in every COIN situation or even general peacekeeping situation they are deployed in, most recently the Irish EUFOR peace keeping brigade in the DCR - you have to send fully trained and equpped troops who can escelate and de-escalate as the threat level and ROE demands.

The problem here is non-state actors, don't look at them as mere terrorists, they are effectively the next expression of enemy, the military lead of the developed world is unasailable, you cannot defeat a nuclear nation state with effective government institutions through force of arms. Non-state actors sidestep the mechanisms of traditional cassius belli to achieve numerous geo-political aims by destablising socio economic balances (though they are never an actual threat to institutional integrity they provide the illusion of it, they use the traditional strenghts of democracy against itself).

If you had not noticed the US over the last decade has changed it's legislative processes and lobbied semi succesfully for other nations and supranational isntitutions to change their legislative processes to allow the persecution of armed conflict against non-state actors and terror organisations. What we did to Bin Laden, with after the affect approval from the Pakistani Government was completely legal and above board under the US Articles of War and international law.

At most I give you that it shows how little our international morality matters to us. For good reason because its a relatively new and sometimes completely self defeating concept and takes vastly more education and understanding to legitimise than moral approaches and judgements to the actions of out countrymen in a domestic context.

The idea that our citizens should be subject to domestic laws abroad is new (and largely spurred on by international child porn concerns), the idea that non-citizens should be subject to domestic laws doesn't exist outside the opinions of pundits.

Spezzmaren, not too long ago in a little place called the world people did this everywhere when things they supported and wanted to happen happened, it's human nature. I am simply saying it is utterly baffling to suggest that celebrating the death of ones enemy is somehow wrong or inhumane when it's an utterly human reaction. I take it as a teenager you were not present in the city during the 7/7 bombings? When you feel genuine fear for your life as you help bloody and battered people out of Kings Cross Station whose only crime was being on the train a few minutes behind yours maybe you could appreciate the reciprocity of action to be found in celebration of the fact that he feared for his life and then was killed.

[Mirage Knight]

No it's just a sign of how littile our morales really matter to most of us.

The fact that a contingent of SEALs was airdropped into that compound with no warning is more a scathing comment on how reliable certain "allies" are with regard to the fight against terrorism than anything else. Consider this: Osama bin Laden had taken refuge in a large compound built specifically for the purpose of sheltering him, located only a few hundred yards from a military academy. He'd been living there for AT LEAST a couple of years too. That speaks VOLUMES of the Pakistani government's so-called efforts to fight terrorism.

The U.S. government was following the old saying: "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself."

[dd14]

What I don't quite understand is the notion that him surviving and standing trial is true justice while him being killed puts everybody on his level, as if death in any form is always equated as revenge and frowned upon. Don't we as a society decide what constitutes justice and what doesn't? I don't understand why I or anybody else should feel guilty about being glad that Osama Bin Laden is gone. Had they captured him alive, sweet, but since he's gone, good riddance. I fail to see how that opinion brings me to the "level" of a man (and I use that term loosely) who orchestrated the MURDER of three thousand innocent people.

And exactly what is so important about a mass murderer standing trial? He's got two options: either he spends the rest of his life in prison, or he receives the death sentence. If he's sentenced to life in prison, all you're doing is forcing him to live the exact same life he'd been living for a decade already, only instead of worrying about hiding from the whole world now all he has to worry about is being raped in the showers. Honestly I bet prison life would have been an improvement for him, what with the three meals a day, access to medical care should he need it, and a nice quiet place to think about evil shit. Oh and he gets the satisfaction of knowing tax payer dollars are being spent to keep him alive. Great punishment.

As far as I'm concerned, he got what he deserved. Sure he was "another human being", but he was a human being who did some horrific shit for the sake of doing horrific shit.


"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." - Martin Luther King, Jr

He didn't say this.

[Mac_Bug]

I donno about you, but I would gladly wave flags and chant anthems when we kill terrorists. Seriously, these people tried to blow you up, you can complain about afghanistan and Iraq or go back in history and dig up reasons why Osama felt the need to become a terrorist in the first place, but until you actually want to change anything about the way our governments operate the reality is the deed is done and it is either you or them.

if for example there was a serial killer holed up in a house and the cops went in and the dude had ak47 in his hand what do you think is going to happen? Why should Osama be treated any differently?

[Mr Carrot]

Mac I would possit that idea that some people in the US and areas of the Eurozone cannot regard terrorists as an enemy, as Sociallato is demonstrating the equality agenda, the idea of of the equalities of identities, is so completely over-wrought in many places for a variety of reasons these people have been unable to transition these people identities from equal to myself to terrorist other.

Kaldor actually writes a fantastic chapter about this in New and Old Wars, well worth a read. We have become so scared by identity politics that our reaction against that spares legitimate identity shifts against those that directly wrong us. You can actually see the growth of the conscientious objector movement in society (of which this an element of) the more the concept of identity/ies are fixed around a single level. Some people cannot accept that someone out there wants them dead just for being X or your government thinks Y and this makes him the enemy of you. There is seeminly an infinite pool of transference of intent and blame from the threat to the possible tangental threat source, as if somehow they can all be legitimately rehabilitated, even Hitler (see the outcry from the liberal intelligentsia over the SAS shooting of IRA bombers during the troubles).

Add some inground socialist rhetoric into the mix with people not behind beholden to their actions and being pawns of social forces (and thus no one is ever guilty as no one ever has true volition unless they are someone in power in America then they are acting on personnal volition) and you get a ludicrous outcome where celebrating the death of a complete shitbag makes you 'as bad as him'.

No intent of action and actions the same as what he undertook make you as bad as him - celebration is a tiny tiny bit morally dubious for people who are possibly autistic and don't 'get' what it's like to feel normal emotions like a human being, but to equate equality of outcomes ignores the fact that human actions scale, as does morality it's not an absolute it's a fluid social expression.

[Shuma]

This whole morality argument is ridiculous, especially when it's just based on the fact that he was human, if a lion killed a bunch of people in a village and a hunter kills the lion no one would shed a tear for the lion, Osama did the same shit, why should i feel sorry for him just because he was of the same species as me? It's not like this guy was innocent, he was the complete opposite of that, he was a "villain" and too many people an enemy, in fact in this analogy the lion would be more innocent than him because he's only doing it to feed, to live and survive, where as Osama wasn't.

The whole idea that all humans are equal is also ridiculous and it has nothing to do with racism, it's a fact, and to say that people like Osama are equal to you and me is ridiculous.

[Carl]

I don't understand why I or anybody else should feel guilty about being glad that Osama Bin Laden is gone. Had they captured him alive, sweet, but since he's gone, good riddance. I fail to see how that opinion brings me to the "level" of a man (and I use that term loosely) who orchestrated the MURDER of three thousand innocent people.



Becuase by doing so your saying it's Ok to kill somone becuase you hate them, yet our whole retoric against him has been built around the basis that him doing exactly that to us is wrong.

We can't go around claiming it's wrong of him to kill people then go and do the same in return and claim where any better.

As SPEZZMAREN says, we've condemed for years people doing exactly what many are doing now.

@Carrot: And how the legislation has changed is relevent how here?

The whole point i'm making here is we can't claim to value somthing where unwilling to enforce on ourselves, or expect others to follow it ifn we will not do so in turn. It's hypocrasiy of the worst kind.

p.s. sorry for the spelling, i'm on a computer away from home and don't have acess to a spelling program here. Sorry.

[Mac_Bug]

well I am by all accounts quite liberal around these parts but I think some people need to honestly take a look around and realize that these threats are very real - and if you don't think our actions in the past decade has made it any safer then you should be even more scared. I am typing this on rapid transit, but if this was in NY or London some guy could easily get up and yell Allah ackbar and press a red button. Maybe you don't believe in the war on terror, but please don't mistake the terrorists as some
sort of better material than your local capital criminals. I know that if my family or my friends were killed I sure as hell would celebrate the day they caught the mastermind behind it, dead or alive. This does not make me a mass murderer, nor a freedom fighter, just human.

ps Mr Carrot don't care much for your narcissism either, if you decided that Jews were in fact inferior then we might just see the next Hitler as some here fear :)

[Mr Carrot]

no the point is that legislative barriers are what create equality, not objective or subjective metrics on biology. The fact that there is true inequality at a biological and political level between individuals is an undeniable fact. (groups trend to average everything out, hence why racism is objectively ludicrous)

It's not narcissim at all its the origins of equality theory and the difference between the ideology of equiality and its failings outside of the philisophical space.

The problem is establishing those barriers transnationally. It's easy to do for whole races/religion at a time because you tend to have representation of that race/religion within your own national body politic (though we forget most of the 20th century genocides, especially the Armenian for this very reason) - its much harder if not impossible to take the next step of trans-nationalism which is to remove the natural citizen value weighting. That's what I am saying, we are always going to be in a position of superiority/inequality if its in our home nation's vested interest when such an interest is better resourced than another nations interest.

True equality can only come from global socialism. Which is not going to happen. As such our relevant national approaches to it are going to be dictated by policy, political support and the rhetoric of the day. It's probably best described as seasonal.

At no point am I suggesting that national governments should not persue an equality agenda, I am simply saying that we should recognise where such an agenda comes from and why we chose to enact it. That is, it seems to create better outcomes as a socio-economic and cultural policy than alternatives, not because it's an inalienable truth that all humans are equal.


Carl there is no hypocracy here, a C2 strike on our command and control facilities and leaders is a completely legitimate tactic covered in the Geneva Convention. Hence why it's completely legal for NATO to blow up Gadaffi's compounds to disrupt his C2, and that's not even in a state of war. It would be hypocracy if we had maintained the protection of nobility under the Chivalric Code but we got rid of that some time ago. The point is we have changed legislation to meet the challenges of the wars we currently fight because it was outdated and focussed towards great power conflicts with ritualised declorations of hostilities which cannot take place with non-state actors.

[Shuma]

We can't go around claiming it's wrong of him to kill people then go and do the same in return and claim where any better.

I'm pretty sure people go around claiming it's wrong to kill INNOCENT people.

[dd14]

Becuase by doing so your saying it's Ok to kill somone becuase you hate them, yet our whole retoric against him has been built around the basis that him doing exactly that to us is wrong.

...no I'm saying it's okay to kill a mass murderer of innocent people. To me that is a very important distinction. It's not like he's hated because he stole my fucking lawn mower or punched me in the face, he killed three thousand innocent people and ruined the lives of three times that amount, if ever there was a reason for somebody to die, that's it. Again, I would have been fine with him being captured alive, but I'll not shed one tear over his death.

[TDATL]

To those saying this is against "democracy." You are wrong. The people have spoken. You are outnumbered and out voted. The majority says

Yes, he deserved to die and we hope he burns in hell! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbB_HVcXpPk&NR=1)

[Carl]

@Shuma & DD14: Then your saying that somehow an inoccents life is worth more than somone elses, because this is what your stance amounts to.

[TDATL]

@Carl

somehow an inoccents life is worth more than somone elses

DUH!

[Dooks Dizzo]

I'm not celebrating his death, I am celebrating the end of his career.

And while I'm definitely not all hard core we need to kill them all blah blah blah, there is no doubt in my mind that the world is better off with less mass murderers in it.


Becuase by doing so your saying it's Ok to kill somone becuase you hate themI'm saying it is okay to kill an enemy soldier, a legitimate target in war. I don't hate Bin Laden, never have. I don't hate rabid dogs either, but I support their deaths for the betterment of all.

[Shuma]

@Shuma & DD14: Then your saying that somehow an inoccents life is worth more than somone elses, because this is what your stance amounts to.

Yes, i'm saying that innocent life is worth more than that of someone who isn't innocent, and i'm saying that someone who was as twisted and evil as Osama Bin Laden deserved to die or at the very least be imprisoned for life, from what we know circumstances didn't allow for his capture, and i'm just fine with that.

[Carl]

TDATL, Shuma: Where done here.

Anybody else wants to place themselves in the same stance, feel free.

EDIT: Dooks: I think you Carrot and Paladin are all in the same general area here. I still disagree with you, but i repect your position, despite that.

[dd14]

Then your saying that somehow an inoccents life is worth more than somone elses, because this is what your stance amounts to.

How do you figure? An innocent life isn't worth "more" than "someone elses" (who?), it's the situation and intent that you have to consider. There's a reason a distinction is made in law between a premeditated crime and a crime of passion, it's because they aren't the same. Osama Bin Jerkwad and terrorists alike purposefully seek out large concentrations of civilians (who happen to be innocent...) for the sole intent of causing terror and chaos. If I did something to you and you murder me out of a fit of rage, that's much different on a psychological level than if you killed my mother, father, sister, aunt, uncle, and dog in an attempt to "get back at me" or cause severe pain.

You seem to see all death as the same, and it's not.

[Commander ASOP]

Why the big fight to make him an equal of the rest of humanitity. Is it simply to stroke your own egos and say that you are so enlightened that you can see all killing is wrong no matter what the circumstances.

He was not equal in my mind for several reasons.

1. He preached hatred and death on the west (all of us) based on the presence of westren forces in arab countries (ya got to get into the way back machine to recall AQ's orginal call to arms). Not that we killed anyone but our very presence was enough to get him to want us dead unless we complied with his demandes.

2. He actually set about killing people to achive his ends multiple bombings, kidnappings annd executions prior to 9/11.

3. Took credit with pride for the deaths on 9/11 and subsequant attacks.

4. Treated women as property

5. I am pretty sure he kicked puppies as well.

So do I consider anyone with these credintials an equal or even a member of humanity no.

[Carl]

You seem to see all death as the same, and it's not.

To me it is. You cannot place a value on human life.

I'm honestly not sure where your going with the whole crime of passion vs premeditated thing though.

[Shuma]

To me it is. You cannot place a value on human life.

And why is that? Why is all death equal? How can you consider the death of a mass murder to the death of say, a random innocent man in the WTC equal? I'm sorry but i find this notion that all death is equal ridiculous.

[Nanaki]

Seeing Hitler brought up brings up a very interesting point, and not because of Godwin's law. I have done quite a bit of research on World War 2 and the post WW2 era, and one of the things that sticks out to me is how much Hitler is dehumanized, even in Europe. I think a lot of the issues behind modern civilization's inability to deal with extremists lies behind the fact that, for thousands of years, we have dealt with the idea of killing other humans by dehumanizing them. The problem is that this 'dehumanization' aspect of humanity is a double-edged sword, what allowed us to fight a war effectively against Hitler and Nazi Germany was also used by Hitler when he exterminated millions of people in concentration camps.

Thus, after realizing the horrors that dehumanization is capable of, we start rejecting it wholesale. The problem is that, psychologically, we are woefully ill-prepared to deal with other humans being mortal enemies. Thus we have the responses like the above, trying to suggest that killing Osama was the wrong thing to do. Despite the fact that Osama has already dehumanized his enemies (and made it abundantly clear) and expressed his intention and ability to wipe out large numbers of innocent humans from the earth. You simply cannot reason with an enemy like that, you cannot deal with an individual like that in civil discourse. Society is built around the idea of laws judging civil discourse between groups of people. Civil Law is designed to deal with individuals within the groups whom break those laws and become threats. Society deals with outside threats by forming a military to neutralize that threat outside the boundaries of civil law, usually on the barrel of a gun. Osama Bin Laden was one of those outside threats.

[dd14]

I'm honestly not sure where your going with the whole crime of passion vs premeditated thing though.

You implied that I thought certain lives were more "important" that others, I was attempting to show you that you should look at the person who committed the crime rather than the victim to make a distinction.


You cannot place a value on human life.

Why do we have different sentences for murder if all life is equal? People who kill in self defense should get the same exact prison sentence as those who rape and kill children, if all human life is equal and what not. I mean, the way you see it, a death is a death, right?

[TDATL]

@Carl

Even Jesus, the biggest advocate for loving everyone, understood you have to punish people. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth and all that. In this case Osama's death has been justified thousands and thousands of times over already. If any killing of a person is wrong then guess what? Osama was responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS. Everything from the elderly to unborn. He killed simply because he felt like it. He didn't do it out of self defense, out of need, or in retaliation. He did it because it fit his freaking mood.

NOT killing him would have been a heinous crime against humanity as a whole.

[Carl]

You implied that I thought certain lives were more "important" that others, I was attempting to show you that you should look at the person who committed the crime rather than the victim to make a distinction.

I'm still struggling, it's probably the analogy you've used that’s confusing the hell out of me as apposed to the point your trying to make.


Why do we have different sentences for murder if all life is equal? People who kill in self defense should get the same exact prison sentence as those who rape and kill children, if all human life is equal and what not. I mean, the way you see it, a death is a death, right?

You might want to read some of the quoted summaries of judges giving out particularly long sentences, (especially so when dealing with cases where extreme sentences are imposed for the crime in question and especially so in the case of life means life sentences), you tend to find the judge emphasizing that he's giving such a sentence to ensure that the individual remains in prison till he or she is no longer a threat to society at large. Whilst I agree Jail has it's punitive side, and I even agree it's a valid use from it. It's far from the only reason a jail sentence is given out. I sometimes think this is why death by dangerous driving has such short sentences. The virtually automatic removal of their ability to drive for a considerable time removes the potential threat, leaving any jail sentences as a combined rehabilitation and punitive time measure.

Note that I’m not against the idea of punitive punishments, I’d have been quite happy to see OBL sit in a jail cell for what would amount to the rest of his natural life after capture. Nor am I saying the nature of a death caused cannot cause a variance in the level of a punitive sentence. But this is a factor relative to what the person responsible did, not to the death itself. In short it's about the surrounding circumstances not the death itself. (Hence why I say that if it turns out the SEAL's went in fully prepped with non-lethal methods and a plan for getting him alive despite armed resistance and something went wrong that put them in an immediate him or me with no time to employ the methods and plans, well i still see it as wrong that anyone died and we should never pretend otherwise IMHO. But it makes it acceptable, we took the option that killed the fewest people overall.)

Hmm, is the whole thing about the surrounding circumstances what you where trying to say with your earlier example?

[dd14]

Well I've got to be honest, I'm a little confused myself now. I was trying to argue that instead of looking at the lives he took and how "important" or unimportant they may be, look at the aggressor and the reasons for committing murder. I was trying to support that with the variation of sentencing, but I did a poor job of it.

I just don't see how you can view this mans life to be precious based on the horrendous crimes he's committed, especially when you know he planned to kill as many people as possible. And if he was given the chance, I'm sure he would have done it again. Hate and murderous contempt was obviously pretty ingrained in his psyche, and SOME level of evil was present for him to be able to do what he did and have pride enough to admit it. Why bother even throwing him in jail, where you actually have to pay for him to be locked away living a life not much different from his own for the last decade? It makes very little sense to me.

Perhaps we should just respect the fact that we probably won't agree on this?

[General Nuke Em]

To me it is. You cannot place a value on human life.
Of course we can. We do it all the time. When a soldier throws himself on top of a grenade to save the rest of his squad, part of that calculation is that the lives of several other soldiers is worth more than his own. When we execute criminals we decide their life is not worthy of continuing, and it must be forfeited for the crimes they committed. When medical personnel conduct triage in mass casualty situations, they decide which people are more likely to live and allocate their time and efforts accordingly.

Legal distinctions often stem from moral ones. We separate murder and killing in self defense because the morality of the intent behind two identical actions are different. Taking innocent life is wrong, killing someone who is threatening you with great bodily harm or death is perfectly acceptable. We explicitly value the lives of the innocent above the lives of those who reject the social contract of society. To suggest that the killing of Osama bin Laden as he was resisting capture with lethal force somehow falls into the murder category only reveals your own moral bankruptcy as you falsely accuse the party that was in the right.

[-Str!ker-]

I have to agree with dd14, I don't think this will end with someone saying that they were wrong and the other person was right. While both sides make passionate points, it feels like the argument is starting to run in circles and frankly the man is already dead and debating it will not change the outcome. Maybe we should discuss an aspect of this that is not already said and done...like our deteriorating relations with Pakistan and how to deal with them since they still have the ability to make a huge impact on our lives and national security.

[Saunders]

Throwing my thoughts to the wind, here...

1) Watching the glorified frat-boys chanting "USA!" on TV made me feel a bit ashamed, but I guess that's what frat-boys are there to do. I could be wrong, but I'd wager that most of the people popping champagne in the streets are too young to have been able to emotionally process the impact of the 9/11 attacks when they happened. Hell, we were all a lot younger then; but when I think back to all that has happened over the past decade, I don't feel like throwing a party. I'm grateful for the tenacity of the US intelligence gathering apparatus (this is truely a victory for them, years in the making) and the world's commitment to bringing those responsible to justice, but I wouldn't really say that I feel particularly joyful. I'd describe it more a weary sense of relief.

2) Osama was hardly "some old man," as some people suggest. He was 54 when he died, not exactly an elderly fellow teetering at the end of his natural life.

[Starblade]

Even Jesus, the biggest advocate for loving everyone, understood you have to punish people. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth and all that.


You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.


If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out.

The Talmud and the Koran have lines on reciprocal action, but varies based on interpretation and I have no real knowledge of the matter beyond that.


He didn't do it out of self defense, out of need, or in retaliation.

So it would have been okay or better if he did it out of self defense, need, or in retaliation? I disagree. The murder of innocents is wrong and unacceptable no matter who the perpetrator is.

[Shuma]

No, because if it was in self defense said innocents wouldn't have been innocents, had it been out of need it would've been a better "reason" but it wouldn't have been okay either and it would've warranted the same punishment, in retaliation? That was probably in his reasoning to begin with.

[Paladin]

I just don't see how you can view this mans life to be precious based on the horrendous crimes he's committed, especially when you know he planned to kill as many people as possible. And if he was given the chance, I'm sure he would have done it again. Hate and murderous contempt was obviously pretty ingrained in his psyche, and SOME level of evil was present for him to be able to do what he did and have pride enough to admit it. Why bother even throwing him in jail, where you actually have to pay for him to be locked away living a life not much different from his own for the last decade? It makes very little sense to me.

A man like that should be pitied, not hated. Hating someone, regardless of how black their actions against you have been, brings you one step closer to being like them. When you put a mad dog down you do it with compassion and regret that this became necessary. When dealing with a man who's mind, heart, and soul have been warped by hatred we should do so with the same attitude. It may well be necessary to put him down, but there is no need to hate him for the disease in his heart.

To embrace hate is to embrace the same disease. You may say it is different because his hatred drove him to kill thousands, while your hatred drives you only to cheer a man's death. But that is a difference only of magnitude.

[Bonnet]

You assume that it is hatred which caused people to cheer in that sentence Paladin. Maybe the removal of something they saw as bad cause them to cheer. It is possibly to not hate something you see as a negative after all.

[Paladin]

When people say things like "He finally got what's coming to him!" or "I hope he burns in hell!", that's hatred.

[General Nuke Em]

I hope he gets raped by 72 virgin pigs tbh

[dd14]

@Paladin Everyone is different, so expecting EVERYBODY to respond to a horrific situation (like 9/11) or an evil asshole (Osama Bin Laden) the same way is a bit unfair. And while I understand perfectly well what you're saying, comparing an instinctual creature with no cognitive thought to an educated human being is simplifying the situation a bit, don't you think?

[Dooks Dizzo]

Paladin, didn't you order the death of that one guy for burning a koran?

Your hypocracy continues to blow my mind.

[Paladin]

@Paladin Everyone is different, so expecting EVERYBODY to respond to a horrific situation (like 9/11) or an evil asshole (Osama Bin Laden) the same way is a bit unfair. And while I understand perfectly well what you're saying, comparing an instinctual creature with no cognitive thought to an educated human being is simplifying the situation a bit, don't you think?
Not at all. Human beings are every bit as subject to our instincts and emotions as a dog. We are easily trainable and controllable, and no one of us can say that we might not have ended up like Osama bin Laden under the right circumstances.


Paladin, didn't you order the death of that one guy for burning a koran?

Your hypocracy continues to blow my mind.
Not at all. The two scenarios are quite comparable. I am glad that Osama bin Laden is dead because he was dangerous, and I will be glad when Terry Jones is inevitably killed, because he is also dangerous. I do not hate either of them, I merely want mad dogs put down.

Hypocrisy would be expressing glee and joy over the death of Osama bin Laden while defending Jones' right to similarly cause deaths.

[Meyerm]

I personally disagree that celebrating the death of Bin Laden is no better than killing thousands of people for being who they are, as that's somehwat similar to saying someone who hates Hitler is just as evil as he was, but I'm not here to try to make others believe that too. I'm just stating my thoughts, and I hope people respect those thoughts.

[Paladin]

Someone who hates Hitler is not "just as evil" (Though people cannot be evil, only their actions can be), but he is taking one step down the road to becoming Hitler.

[Carl]

@DD14: I think we are going to have to agree that we can't agree.

That said let me clarify a part of my position, I’ve got so emotionally caught up here in how wrong i find any death to be that I’ve forgotten there's a core element to my beliefs on matters such as this that others probably won't latch onto so I should have explained it clearly from the start.

Whilst I consider all lives equally valuable, and feel each loss is equally wrong. I do believe there are circumstances under which it can be justified. Self defense is the most littoral, a simple them or me situation. But as I’ve stated vis a vis this instance, there are still circumstances under which I could see this being a justified action by the SEALS. Indeed there's very littlie in the way of death and destruction on one party that cannot be justified given sufficiently extreme circumstances. The key point underlying it all however is that you have to have tried every possible non-lethal method available to you and that you have been actually presented with an opportunity to use before moving onto the lethal option. I'll accept some give in that of course, humans are fallible and maybe they missed a chance, or missed an option, because under premature at the specific moment in time it wasn't visible to them. How much give is so dependent on the situation it's literally a case of sit down, look at every situation, and then decide.

In short what I’m saying is that a death will never stop being wrong, but it can still be acceptable given the right conditions. That’s probably hard for you to grasp i guess but it all comes back round to the fact that once you've exhausted your non-lethal options, your simply left with the cold certainty that if you don't take the other guy down he's going to kill you and then go on to kill others. It's cold unsympathetic numbers. You’re committing a lesser wrong to prevent a greater wrong.

This is ultimately why I believe simply executing him would be wrong. Once we’ve got him in custody he’s no longer a threat to us, his follower yes, but that’s still true now. By killing him we achieve nothing except to satisfy a littlie revenge.
I also guess you raise a valid point vis a vis weather there are varying degree’s of unacceptability, just as there must clearly be varying degree’s of acceptability in what I’ve stated above. I’ll be honest; it’s not something I’ve thought on much. Given my thoughts vis a vis certain issues it’s clearly the case that I instinctively think there is, but I’ve never sat down and looked at it that way consciously. I’m going to have a good bit of thinking to do on this I guess to try and quantify everything.

That said I’m going to immediately do something else. I want to issue an official apology to those I said where directly comparable to Osama for their views on this matter. Whilst your beliefs that he deserved to be killed regardless still place you on the lower end of my morale spectrum. It’s clear to me that Osama’s action must by my own beliefs on other matters carry a greater level of unacceptability than your views.

I allowed my own emotion driven instincts to push me in a bad direction, to make a statement without thinking as carefully about it as I really should have. That represents a genuine moment of hypocrisy on my part. For that you have my genuine apologies.

With all that said I believe I’ve explained my position on this matter as thoroughly as I can. I’m not here to try to force my views on others, merely express my opinion and views on this and peoples responses to it. I think at this point DD14 and others are correct in saying that agreeing to disagree is the best course of action.

[Maktaka]

I think Paladin is Yoda in disguise.

[Paladin]

More like Lucas cribbed heavily from Buddhism in creating the Jedi philosophy.

[General Nuke Em]

Its cool Carl your beliefs that represent everything wrong with certain elements of western society still put you at the bottom of mine. I mean what the fuck kind of apology is that? "Sorry I compared you to the embodiment of evil in modern times and the arch nemesis of our society, I actually meant you're just pretty bad people."

[Mr Carrot]

I opened a bottle of Krug 1988 at 3:30am and had a glass of bubbly to celebrate with the gf, who bless her little blonde head didn't know the difference between him and Saddam, before going to work early and enjoying a day typing up the fact that this was an assassination (which is becomming increasingly more clear) grinning all the time that just deserts had been served. At high velocity. Into his face.

Now does that make me someone who is well adjusted but is ok with the usage of lethal force to kill ones national enemies whom one is at war with? I relished the idea that some SEAL had just swung through the window and blasted him in the face, no attempt to take him alive, pure retribution to someone who has personally attempted to fuck my life over twice.

Or

Does that make me MORE evil than Hitler? I also enjoy fox hunting if that adds to my evil scale.

p.s. even if he was tied to the chair and was repenting for his sins, tears in his eyes at the sudden realisation at the scale of the crimes he was commited and the suffering caused, I would have more than happily gone up to him and given him both barrels from my 12 guage then gone and had another glass of bubbly.

[LoCo]

Mr Carrot: Obviously you are not reading what people are saying. Nobody - anywhere - stated, hinted, implied or even began to have the thought that you might possibly be, "MORE evil than Hitler".

The level to which you are engaging in a debate with others is so low as to almost be non-existent. The level to which you are, apparently still drunk from the bubbly, making up arguments for other people instead of engaging with the arguments they are making is so far off the scale that, really, there is no level for it. That is exactly what you are doing.

The argument is, simply put, that people(A) who are cheering the death of another human being are behaving in much the same way as people(B) who cheer the deaths of other human beings.

People(A) is you and those like you.
People(B) is OBL and people like him.

The people(C) who understand that sometimes you have to kill others but that doesn't mean you are gleeful in the killing, are understandably concerned that people(A) are following in the footsteps of people(B) because their actions in the face of events are rather mirrored.

Feeling relief, or satisfaction that the deed is finally done is fine. Gloating, feeling joy or taking any kind of happiness from the fact that one human being has killed another is not fine.

You are taking joy in the fact that it has come to this. That people could not find another way to settle their differences. You take joy in that. That is not well adjusted. That is also the view that OBL held. That there was no other way except that people should die.

So you share characteristics in both thought and behavior with people you call evil. Further, the exact thoughts and behavior you share with them is the thoughts and behavior which you find most reprehensible about them.

What does that tell you about where your current thoughts and behavior leads?

[Mr Carrot]

Actually I fully engaged with the dabate clearly and at length and it has come to the point where people are STILL implying that I and others are in some way wrong to be pleased/take joy from retribution. So I have lowered my level of debate to directly confront that near autistic socially handicapped sentiment. One that seems unable to understand the thousands of cheering elated people on the streets a couple of nights ago, one completely disengaged from the general body of cultural relation and understanding.

That is: There is supposedly something wrong with me for being really rather chuffed about this chap being slotted.

I can quite clearly tell you that feeling happy at this fellows death does not make me feel in the slightest bit like an Islamic fundementalist terrorist. At all.

There is absolutly no relation between the two and as General Nuke Em points out only the lunatic self hating state of elements of Western society could make a comparison.

You also clearly are not in posession of any of the reasons as to why OBL did anything he did, he didn't do it because he enjoyed it when his enemies died (though who knows infidels dying may have been something he got off on as a side issue), he commited his acts in order to influence US foreign policy and cause a withdrawl of US forces from Saudi Arabia. Moving kafur from the holy lands around Mecca and helping to precipitate the collapse of the House of Saud and usher in a Whabiist takeover of the Kingdom.

There is NO relation at all between these two different facts, hence the being as bad as hitler point. To even imply that people celebrating his death are in somehow following in his footsteps is to imply not only a complete misunderstanding of the motivations of OBL and AQ but more pertinently it in some way implies that I am evil (hence hitler) on some form of scale of evil, and presumably if I celebrated the deaths of all my enemies (I do try) I would be AS evil as the greatest terrorist of our generation.

For the record I dont even think he was evil, he had his agenda like the west has it's own agenda. It's just his agenda directly coincided with trying to kill me repeatedly. This, along with the fact that he kept trying to kill a bunch of other people in the west, made him our enemy we were at war with.

You clearly didn't read the thread and see where I previously engaged in an attempt to reason with your side of the argument. I lost half my family firms fucking US trading floor in the tower 2 collapse. I knew those people. I was in Windows on the World on 7/11 the original attack date, everyone in there on 9/11 died. I was on the Kings Cross line 10 minutes before the bombs went off, I helped people out of the station and gave medical assistance as best I could as a trained OTC first aider.

There is NOTHING worng with me being FUCKING HAPPY this guy is dead. There is something wrong with YOU telling me I am a bad person because of this.

Ironically the only people treading in anyones footsteps are you lot, the similarities between the traitorous society hating 19th and 20th century Marxists with causal blame theory at the cost of being able to empathise with your countrymen, which did end up leading to bloody revolutions and domestic terrorism across Europe.

[Paladin]

You are wrong to take joy in retribution. And in fact this was not retribution, but merely the rational elimination of a threat to our tribe. Retribution and vengeance are always wrong. And if that is your motivation for killing someone, then you are wrong. If you take pleasure in seeing retribution served, you are wrong.

I am personally glad that he's dead, but your reasons for being happy about it are vastly different from mine, and quite disturbing, actually.

If someone killed one of my loved ones, I might very well take vengeance on him, but I would at least be under no illusions that my actions were correct, proper, justified, or moral.

[-Str!ker-]

If we are going to continue to discuss the morality of celebrating OBL death, people need to stop taking personal jabs at each other while debating it in this thread. CARL apologized for behavior that in hindsight he felt was improper and doesn't need anymore slandering. We are starting to become divided in this argument. Right now we should be unified in the fact that one of the biggest threats to national security and freedoms is now gone. That's whats supposed to happen in times like these for Americans, sometimes we are so diverse in each other that moments like these are ones that have to bring us together. Now some people will celebrate and some won't, it all depends on each person. Is people enjoying the fact that he was killed wrong? I'm not one to say and neither is anyone else. We all have our reasons for wanting him dead or some of us wanting him alive. We should appreciate the fact that we all live in a free world where we can express our own opinions and therefore respect each other for sharing their feelings with us.

[PetarB]

If someone killed one of my loved ones, I might very well take vengeance on him, but I would at least be under no illusions that my actions were correct, proper, justified, or moral.
I used to know someone who would have disagreed with you. Members of his family were killed, and he joined partisans to take vengeance on those who killed his family members. He felt his actions were correct, proper, justified and moral - and took great pleasure in the fact that he efforts in killing them eventually help drive the invaders out. This was my grandfather by the way.

[Mr Carrot]

Was going to say Paladin you are kind of writing the defending side in war of aggression of as being wrong in fighting back with that sentiment.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

self defence != retribution

nor doe whether or not you take joy in things affect your actions per se

[General Nuke Em]

So what possible justification do we have for punishing any criminal ever? Clearly they're not a threat at the very moment we impose said punishment (because apparently whatever sins they committed hours/days/years ago don't matter anymore), so you can't say we're not defending society against them.

This is still pretending Osama bin Laden was a criminal as opposed to a sworn enemy of western civilization who has come as close to a person declaring war against a nation-state as possible.

Also -Str!ker- I don't think you understand the meaning of an apology. Apologies are not "you are not the scum of the earth, you're merely bad people".

[Mr Carrot]

Well given that retribution (as a society) is a normal part of the court system and features in modern GWOT related Casus Belli legislation I think it does feature.

"In conventional wars, when the enemy upholds the conventions of war, retribution is irrelevant with regard to individual soldiers, and hence self-defense provides the only framework for justifying killing them. In wars against terror, retribution offers a justificatory framework that complements and bolsters the self-defense justification. Thus, killing enemy combatants in wars on terror—namely, activists in the terror organizations—is, if anything, more, and not less, justified than killing enemy combatants in conventional wars."

Statman is worth a read,

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/StatmanTargetedKilling.html

[TheDeadlyShoe]

oh come on guys dont be utterly silly.

do i need to type out the dictionary definition of justice, or point out the differences between it and retribution? I think I do not.

[Paladin]

I used to know someone who would have disagreed with you. Members of his family were killed, and he joined partisans to take vengeance on those who killed his family members. He felt his actions were correct, proper, justified and moral - and took great pleasure in the fact that he efforts in killing them eventually help drive the invaders out. This was my grandfather by the way.
The fact that he was your grandfather doesn't make his motives any less wrong. Please note: His motives, not the specific action, make him wrong.


Was going to say Paladin you are kind of writing the defending side in war of aggression of as being wrong in fighting back with that sentiment.
Not at all. You are making a false assumption: That you must be motivated by vengeance and/or retribution in order to fight. Fighting back is often proper and justified, but your motivation determines this. If you do so with hate and a desire to punish or avenge, you are in the wrong. If you do it with the desire to protect your friends and family, your countrymen, and eliminate a threat, that is correct.


So what possible justification do we have for punishing any criminal ever? Clearly they're not a threat at the very moment we impose said punishment (because apparently whatever sins they committed hours/days/years ago don't matter anymore), so you can't say we're not defending society against them.
I have often stated on these very boards my belief that a justice system should never be designed to punish. There is no justification for punishing someone for his or her actions. Imprisonment and/or execution are not measures meant to punish, but merely to ensure that people who have proven themselves to be dangers to society are isolated from that society and/or eliminated as threats altogether through execution. We imprison them because we must, in order to keep ourselves safe, not to hurt them because they have hurt us.

One is reasonable and necessary, the other is reprehensible.

[Vintage]

Paladin you often state your opinion like it is correct and all others are wrong. Just because you believe something is morally wrong does not mean it actually is for everyone else. It just means that it is for you.

[Paladin]

Obviously if I believe I am correct I will say so ;)

And if I didn't believe it to be correct I wouldn't believe it.

Furthermore, my ethical system is fully rationalized all the way to its foundations, so it's not merely subjective morality.

[Andkat]

But of course it is. The foundations one selects for any such ethical system are totally arbitrary.

[PetarB]

my ethical system is fully rationalized all the way to its foundations, so it's not merely subjective morality.
Wow, you could have fun all day debating that one.

I read about the op. Its interesting to read about the operation itself. Apparently a Ranger team were standing by close at hand if things went crazy. It also seems the SEALs were on the ground for 40 mins. That seems like a long time to me. I wonder how much of that was firefight, and how much was mopping up?

[Vintage]

However rational you think it is you're only human, your morals are not superior. You've even contradicted your own morals in this thread. You have stated in the Terry Jones thread that you hope that he was killed for inciting violence. Now here you say you didn't wish death upon Osama.

Just to be clear I don't fault you for not hoping he was killed. If you do not hope he was killed that is fine, but when you say you have this awesome rationalized morality system that is right, and then your morals conflict, it leaves me wondering.

[Dooks Dizzo]

Your rational morals also fail when presented with false or incomplete data.

The whole 'anyone not totally in control of themselves at all times is akin to an animal' thing is just fucking silly. Likening Bin Laden to an animal is a bad plan. He didn't go all terrorist for idealogical reasons, he did it for money and power. Completely sane if sociopathical behavior. (My likening him to a rabid dog had nothing to do with behavior, it was a reference to the safety of others.)

[n0z3k1ll3r]

However rational you think it is you're only human, your morals are not superior. You've even contradicted your own morals in this thread. You have stated in the Terry Jones thread that you hope that he was killed for inciting violence. Now here you say you didn't wish death upon Osama.Actually he hasn't said that. He's condemning desire for the death of an individual stemming from hatred. This doesn't rule out desiring the death of an individual for utilitarian reasons.

[General Nuke Em]

I have often stated on these very boards my belief that a justice system should never be designed to punish. There is no justification for punishing someone for his or her actions. Imprisonment and/or execution are not measures meant to punish, but merely to ensure that people who have proven themselves to be dangers to society are isolated from that society and/or eliminated as threats altogether through execution. We imprison them because we must, in order to keep ourselves safe, not to hurt them because they have hurt us.
Has Bin Laden proven himself to be a danger to society and does killing him as he is shooting back at American soldiers ensure that he is eliminated as a threat? Are we not allowed to simultaneously be relieved that we have eliminated this threat and celebrate the fact that justice has been served/we got him/he is roasting in hell being raped by 72 virgin pigs?


Likening Bin Laden to an animal is a bad plan. He didn't go all terrorist for idealogical reasons, he did it for money and power.
I'd actually be curious as to how much money and power he exactly had as world Islamic terrorist leader. Hiding in caves and mansions with no communication with the outside world doesn't exactly seem to be the decadent lifestyle one would expect to enjoy if they were after money and power.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Has Bin Laden proven himself to be a danger to society and does killing him as he is shooting back at American soldiers ensure that he is eliminated as a threat?Not wanting to answer for Paladin, but I imagine he'd say something along the lines of "Yes. Just be sure that's why you're doing it."

[Paladin]

You've even contradicted your own morals in this thread. You have stated in the Terry Jones thread that you hope that he was killed for inciting violence. Now here you say you didn't wish death upon Osama.
You are incorrect. I have never once stated that I didn't wish death upon Osama bin Laden. I have in fact stated that I am glad he is dead and that he needed to be killed. I'm not sure how many times I can repeat myself before people actually grasp my position. It's acceptable to kill someone (Or wish him dead, if you prefer) if this person is a threat. It's the reason you want him dead that makes the desire correct or incorrect.


Are we not allowed to simultaneously be relieved that we have eliminated this threat and celebrate the fact that justice has been served/we got him/he is roasting in hell being raped by 72 virgin pigs?
Wanting someone dead is rational if they are a threat to you (Or your tribe). Wanting them to suffer (Roasting in hell/being raped by pigs) is despicable.

[Stripe7]

As an atheist I just wished him dead, don't believe in those 72 virgin pigs. :p He promoted and organized terror attacks, he took responsibility/bragged about planning the deaths of thousands and executing those plans resulting in the death of thousands. No need for a trial. Big difference between planning/causing the death of thousands and burning a religious text.