Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What Would Vader Do

Mentaly press the big red button and have the Captain check the block "Rebel country destroyed"

dogma wrote:

Ouze wrote:The man killed three thousand goddamn Americans. We don't give up on catching a man like that just because it got hard.

Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:
Some evidence and eye-witness testimony points to the possability that he was intentionally killed by US forces to make him into a war hero to build support for the war.

The subsequent investigation was a giant cover-up and snow job from the bottom all the way up to the president...

I sincerely doubt it was intentional, as the standard argument against conspiracies applies (too many people knowing too many potentially valuable facts).

I wouldn't doubt, however, that certain mistakes may have been made, and then subsequently glossed over. And that's not even really a dig on the military, most organizations with a solid sense of esprit de corps will take liberties in how they investigate and punish their members, especially in terms of public visibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Nominally, Osama Bin Laden was only the figure head of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri has been the real leader for a long time, but he needed Bin Laden alive to hold the organization together. With BL dead, Al Qaeda has pretty much collapsed in on itself and fractured.

He was also a major fundraiser, given both his background and notoriety.

No it wasn't actually important on a strategic/military level, but with Osama as a revered figurehead and jihadist folk-hero it certainly had great symbolic value from a propaganda perspective.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:It will if their nukes are vaporized in place. First Strike. Live it. Learn It. Love it.

Haven't you played Missile Command? You can see them coming down before they hit...

Edit: Irrelevant.

CT GAMER wrote:
No it wasn't actually important on a strategic/military level, but with Osama as a revered figurehead and jihadist folk-hero it certainly had great symbolic value from a propaganda perspective.

So we spent a large amount of money on the removal of bin Laden because it would make some Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And a burial at sea

Propaganda is just us making ourselves feel warm and fuzzy? Come on man, you're better than that.

It's good for our morale. It sends a valuable message to others like him that we won't give up and they can't get away with it forever sending other people to their deaths. It removes his capacity to potentially orchestrate any more attacks. It removes his capacity to personally raise money or more supporters to the cause.

Personally I'd rather he had been seized and tried as a criminal, like the Nazis at Nurenburg. I think that would have been even better from a moral and propaganda standpoint, making an outstanding point about the rule of law and us really standing by the principles we espouse. But if it's a choice between shooting him or him potentially getting away (or even killing a couple of the SEALs), a bullet is pretty close to what he deserved.

Mannahnin wrote:Propaganda is just us making ourselves feel warm and fuzzy? Come on man, you're better than that.

It's good for our morale. It sends a valuable message to others like him that we won't give up and they can't get away with it forever sending other people to their deaths. It removes his capacity to potentially orchestrate any more attacks. It removes his capacity to personally raise money or more supporters to the cause.

To be honest, I'm not even sure it made us feel all that warm, or all that fuzzy. Is our morale really that much better in the aftermath of bin Laden's death? I know that, at least for me, it was barely a footnote to the year, and I have a lot of personal connections to NYC. Maybe I'm just cold (well, I probably am) but it simply doesn't seem like it was worth the money as an action when divorced from the domestic political boon (though, arguably, that's all that matters).

Ultimately, we killed an old man living in Boca Raton, Pakistan.. It made some people, mostly American citizens, happy but it didn't produce any long-term strategic boons.

Sense of Accomplishment

dogma wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
No it wasn't actually important on a strategic/military level, but with Osama as a revered figurehead and jihadist folk-hero it certainly had great symbolic value from a propaganda perspective.

So we spent a large amount of money on the removal of bin Laden because it would make some Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

In a manner of speaking Yes, And this surprises you?

Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to settle a score with the bad man that messed with his Daddy (and also to balloon the stock portfolios of his cronies, but whatever)...

CT GAMER wrote:
In a manner of speaking Yes, And this surprises you?

Surprises? No.

I just like poking holes in the "manly man" image that entails strength, and a stiff upper lip.

CT GAMER wrote:
Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to settle a score with the bad man that messed with his Daddy (and also to balloon the stock portfolios of his cronies, but whatever)...

Come on, you know that's not true.

Jihadin wrote:And a burial at sea

Better than some several hundred soldiers received at the hands of our Air Force.

dogma wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to settle a score with the bad man that messed with his Daddy (and also to balloon the stock portfolios of his cronies, but whatever)...

Come on, you know that's not true.

The part in parentheses is just a coincidental byproduct im sure, but the first part was widely discussed and talked about going back as far as 1993:

By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01
U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

Clan Bush was rumored to be absolutely enraged by this fact, and when Jr. got into office he had his opportunity to get some personal payback, but he needed a "good" excuse to invade, and thus the phantom "WMDs" that could never be found post-invasion...

CT GAMER wrote:
The part in parentheses is just a coincidental byproduct im sure, but the first part was widely discussed and talked about going back as far as 1993:

There are easier ways to make more money, and the latter, well, its discussed by fools.

lolol pakistan fighting the US

But yeah We won't fight the guys with sand in their asses because they don't have anything thing we want. Seriously that's how my government thinks.

Why should we invade so soldiers like me can get sand in our asses like the people already living there?

Pakistan imo is like the fat ugly girl who owns a lot of cats. You accidently step on one of her flowers and she flips gak because she has nothing better to do than be angry at the world for having nothing.

Pakistan lol you're a joke.

dogma wrote:So we spent a large amount of money on the removal of bin Laden because it would make some Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Terrorism is a war of perception, for both sides. Asking why a fortune was spent killing Osama is like asking why AQ focusses on high profile attacks that need a lot of organisation and are therefore rare and easier to counter, instead of a campaign of constant attacks on vital infrastructure.

Instead, both sides focus a large number of resources on symbolic victories, because the primary battleground is in people's perception of who is in control.

Or you could view it from Conan's point of view.
"What is best in life?"

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

So i guess we won besides the lamentation part lol

but on a more serious note the perception is like you said, a large number of resources on symbolic victories is what the public percieves as the war on terror. But is something symbolic even worth anything?

Yeah this toe nail is symbolic to me because it was my first toe nail ever.

You see thats taking it to the extreme yet they are in the same ball park as "WE GOT OSAMA WOOOO!"

Theres really no victor here. We are basically fighting a type of people not a nation so there are no borders, no treaties, nothing, just a bunch of dead muslims and rocks.

So this war could basically go on forever. I rest my case

sebster wrote:
Instead, both sides focus a large number of resources on symbolic victories, because the primary battleground is in people's perception of who is in control.

Sure, but why not just bow out?

No one sensible believes the US controls the world, and the rest cling to sensibilities that the rest of us laugh at.

Good. Finally someone in the middle east is telling the Americans to piss off. And why the hell are drones inside Pakistan air space anyways. I'm sure the U.S. Military has some sort of justifcation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously cant wait for the states to start an act of agression on the Pakistanies. The Americans really need to be put in their place and finally relise what their place in the world is. They are not on top anyone more. I'm talking about Pakistan dealing with them. I'm talking about the Chinese.

dogma wrote:Sure, but why not just bow out?

No one sensible believes the US controls the world, and the rest cling to sensibilities that the rest of us laugh at.

It isn't about complete control or no control at all, but somewhere in between.

Consider if ten years from now Osama was still going*. No matter how many other AQ people were killed or captured, no matter how many other terrorist schemes had been stopped, there would remain an idea that people could declare their own private wars on the US.

On the other hand, consider if one month after 9/11 the spec ops team attacked Osama's compound and killed him.

In the first instance, people wouldn't believe the US had no control over world affairs, but they'd certainly percieve US potency a lot less than in the second instance, even if nothing really material changed.


*Somehow surviving on dialysis all that time... it's a theoretical, work with me here

sebster wrote:
In the first instance, people wouldn't believe the US had no control over world affairs, but they'd certainly percieve US potency a lot less than in the second instance, even if nothing really material changed.

Among other, Western, nations that already bow to the US. I don't expect that Islamic militants, given their stance on martyrdom, have been dissuaded by bin Laden's death.

To generalize, I've not heard a better rationale for the action than "It makes white people feel better." everything else is speculation regarding the nature of reactions in a part of the world we cannot survey.

Edit: I'm not saying that making white people feel better is bad, just that we might do well to recognize what we're really doing.

Edit 2: "White" in this context is euphemistic.

Think of it as Pillars of logistical/finance/propaganda

Osama DEAD = Spiritual leader/founder no longer around physicaly to inspire the troops. Matrydom though works much better if there were was a body.

Saddam Hussien DEAD = Actually donated money to suicide bombers family (10K) against Isreal. Notice the drop in that attack since he swung from a stairwell?

Awalaki DEAD = An american that actually thinks like an american and knows the right button to push to make someone slide down that path of "Jihad"

Any new training camps springing up in any other countries? Since currently Afghanistan is their version of NTC its either GO/NO GO training for them

Resource denial. Insurgents were down to crawling throgh minefields recovering russian mines for the explosive. Russia do like to place a lot of grenades under them (example)

Gettng off track

What I'm saying is that this type of war is a pain in the a$$ to fight. So we knock down pillars.

shadowsnip wrote:

but on a more serious note the perception is like you said, a large number of resources on symbolic victories is what the public percieves as the war on terror. But is something symbolic even worth anything?

Well, yes. 'Symbolic' doesn't mean the same thing as 'without worth'. In fact, symbolism is a major component of worth.

Yeah this toe nail is symbolic to me because it was my first toe nail ever.

You see thats taking it to the extreme yet they are in the same ball park as "WE GOT OSAMA WOOOO!"

Wow, dude. Deep.

Theres really no victor here. We are basically fighting a type of people not a nation so there are no borders, no treaties, nothing, just a bunch of dead muslims and rocks.

So this war could basically go on forever. I rest my case

Your 'case' shows an incredible lack of understanding of.... Well, anything.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
In the first instance, people wouldn't believe the US had no control over world affairs, but they'd certainly percieve US potency a lot less than in the second instance, even if nothing really material changed.

Among other, Western, nations that already bow to the US. I don't expect that Islamic militants, given their stance on martyrdom, have been dissuaded by bin Laden's death.

To generalize, I've not heard a better rationale for the action than "It makes white people feel better." everything else is speculation regarding the nature of reactions in a part of the world we cannot survey.

Is he present to raise money or help recruit jihadis? Can he record more videos saying basically, "Hey, I'm still alive and fighting the good fight against the Great Satan and you can too"?

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
Instead, both sides focus a large number of resources on symbolic victories, because the primary battleground is in people's perception of who is in control.

Sure, but why not just bow out?

No one sensible believes the US controls the world, and the rest cling to sensibilities that the rest of us laugh at.

Wait I thought the quadrilateral commission controlled the world. Is everything I knew a lie?

"WE GOT OSAMA WOOOD!"

That's almost sigworthy.

Frankenberry wrote:So wait, these donkey-caves harbor a known terrorist and we're donkey-caves for keeping spy drones in their airspace? How's that supposed to work?

They shot one down...rightly so. We'dve done the same. Doesn't mean we'll stop sending drones all over the place, it just means they'll ALL be armed next time.

Funny how people talk about how much America sucks when those same douchebags live in countries that have had their entire infrastructure BUILT with money supplied by American taxpayers.

That about sums up this post.

So you honestly think that just because a country protects a criminal, you have the right to offend their airspace as much as you want? I agree that it was totally wrong for them to hide him like they did, but it wasn't entirely acceptable to just shoot him either. He should have faced a fair trial and he should have served decades in prison for the crimes he did. Now he just got off the hook. Bang. One bullet, no pain, no penalty, no suffering in custody. Besides, USA has also harbored criminals in the past, most notably former Nazi scientists who had made experiments with humans.

And you are not the world police, no offense. If they take extreme measures to protect their airspace, you have no right to send a fleet of armed-to-the-teeth drones to lay waste to their country, while you were the ones provoking them in the first place. Heck, some countries have shot down passenger planes just because they came too near their border. You should be grateful they have tolerated military class spy planes in their airspace for this long.

First of all, America means the two whole continents. USA means you. Secondly, people are allowed to criticise, no matter how "douchebag". And that last statement is a bit exaggerated. You have helped the world a lot, yes. But you have not "built" whole countries. Even in post WW2 Europe you only gave support and relief packages. Countries like Pakistan have built their economy mostly on agriculture and exports.

He should have faced a fair trial and he should have served decades in prison for the crimes he did.

How exactly are you going to take him alive:

1) Pakistan will protect him/make sure hes relocated.
2) Without invading airspace

It was practically impossible to get him any other way that didn't involve in a shootout.

Besides, prison is the easy life now. He'd do 10-15 years then get parole.

One argument made, and a good one I think, that you couldn't afford to keep him in jail, that every terrorist dirtbag from here to Leichtenstein would start grabbing people and holding/killing them.

Frankly, he was the maastermind behind killing thousands of US citizens. Capping him quickly was the most humane option that should have been done. Justice matters.

Can I mention that he wasn't the "mastermind" behind anything I can remember, more of a financier and ideological leader...which is more important not less.

Keeping Osama alive in the states would have been insane. Imagine the possible mass hostage taking to trade their lives for Osama freedom. It's better that he is dead and gone. I notice though that no one of his caliber has step forward to "inspire" the "Jihad".