breaking news.. Bin Laden Dead

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.

**Altruizine**

sebster wrote:
I would argue their judgement was fairly terrible before then, and there's every chance 9/11 delayed the drive towards Iraq by forcing the US into Afghanistan first.

That could be true, I'm not sure. I know the US has never really had much difficulty in convincing the population to go off and fight wars before, but Iraq would have been a harder sell than most that had come before.

It's absolutely true. One of the biggest silent motivators behind the Iraq war was the desire/demand to punish somebody, specifically an Arab state, since Afghanistan does not qualify, for 9/11.

Your thing about the ease of convincing Americans to go to war is a huge overstatement/generalization. Maybe you could say that pre-Vietnam, but not in the context of the early 2000s. Not at all.

Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

Uhh... al Qaeda was responsible for the most severe terrorist attack in British history, the 2005 transit bombings in London. So it's got a bit to do with you.

**htj**

I'm not sure due legal course would have spared us that. It also raises the question of where he should be tried, and what for. Much easier for those who want him gone to have it this way. Not better, just easier.

**Albatross**

Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

**htj**

Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

Really? More than any IRA attacks or the old Anarchist ones in the nineteenth century? I did not know that. Do you have numbers? Sorry, that sounds a bit morbid, but I am geniunely suprised to learn this.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Actual conversation at work last night

George: "They wanted him alive if possible"
Mike: "Why? They wouldn't get any info out of him through torture"

Then the room suddenly gets really quiet as I speak

Me: "Dude, I'd torture him for a Klondike bar"

Everyone at work starts cheering, and my lunch was paid for

..I'm a sick vengeful puppy like that

**daedalus**

Hooray! Now we can repeal the Patroit Act and start on looking at the longterm by focusing on things like space exploration and finding replacements for gasoline...

Wait, where'd everyone go?

**htj**

daedalus wrote:Hooray! Now we can repeal the Patroit Act and start on looking at the longterm by focusing on things like space exploration and finding replacements for gasoline...

Wait, where'd everyone go?

Pakistan is my bet.

**Medium of Death**

I think Albatross means the greatest amount of British deaths on a single day, caused by terrorism, was on Sept 11 2001.

66 on September 11 2001

**AvatarForm**

May we also take this time in our rejoicing to remember the 3000+ fallen from 9/11- men women and children tragicly taken from our world in such unbelievable circumstances. Now Pray for all of us... I am sure AlQaeda will not take lightly. May we all hold our loved ones closer to our hearts tonight.

**htj**

Medium of Death wrote:I think Albatross means the greatest amount of British deaths on a single day, caused by terrorism, was on Sept 11 2001.

66 on September 11 2001

That's what I figured, thanks for the stat. It's more than I realised, although I shouldn't be surprised. I was still in school when it happened and my English teacher had a British friend who worked in the WTC. Naturally concerned, she sent him an email asking him if he was alright. Turns out he was off sick that day, she found out later. At first, she just received a short email saying only:

"I'm OK. Friends all dead."

Really brought the whole thing into some perspective for my simple teen-age mind.

**heacy hitter**

hmmm...Bin laden dead and PS3 network down coincidence I thing not. lol

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:
WarOne wrote:I got lazy there and should of said Pakistani government.

But it's still the same problem, the Pakistani government is full of competing interests. Did you read my post?

I did. And you will still have Americans who will not trust the Pakistani government because they believe some element of it probably helped Osama Bin Laden.

How many Americans do you think go beyond the generalized level of talking about a national government without going into detail about political factions, various levels of governance, ect.?

**Melissia**

Reaction of various world leaders, courtesy of CNN:

(CNN) -- World reaction poured in early Monday after President Barack Obama's announcement that terror leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. The United States put its diplomatic facilities around the world on high alert and issued a global travel warning for Americans.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Karzai said he hopes the world believes that his country is "not the place of terrorism" after the announcement that the al Qaeda leader was killed in neighboring Pakistan.

"If the international troops/forces are true allies of the Afghans -- they should come out and say that the killing of Afghans, children and elders which took place over the many years on a daily basis was not a good idea," Karzai said on RTA TV.

Afghan opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah, Hope and Change

Bin Laden's killing proves that Pakistan is a "haven" for terror groups, according to Abdullah.

"Killing of Osama bin Laden is pleasant news for Afghans, and now it's proven that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not based in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a haven for them," he said.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Gillard congratulated the U.S. on the operation, and said she acknowledges the role of Pakistan in the fight against terror.

"Our fight against terrorism does not end with bin Laden's death. We must remain vigilant against the threat posed by al Qaeda and the groups it has inspired," she said.

"We will continue our support for the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and our partners, and we will continue our efforts in Afghanistan to ensure that the country never again becomes a safe haven for terrorism."

British Prime Minister David Cameron

The leader said he welcomed news of bin Laden's death.

"Osama bin Laden was responsible for the worst terrorist atrocities the world has seen -- for 9/11 and for so many attacks, which have cost thousands of lives," he said. "This is a time to remember all those murdered by Osama bin Laden, and all those who lost loved ones," he said. "It is also a time too to thank all those who work round the clock to keep us safe from terrorism."

European Commission President Barroso and European Council President Van Rompuy

The leaders said bin Laden's death shows that bad deeds do not go unpunished.

"Osama bin Laden was a criminal responsible for heinous terrorist attacks that cost the lives of thousands of innocent people," both said in a joint statement. "His death makes the world a safer place and shows that such crimes do not remain unpunished."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

Sarkozy said bin Laden's death was a result of a "remarkable U.S. commando" operation.

"Osama Bin Laden was a promoter of the ideology of hatred and was the chief of a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of victims, especially in Muslim countries," he said.

"For his victims, justice has been done. Today, in France, we think of them and their families."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Merkel said the death is a major setback for the terror group.

"With the commando action against Osama bin Laden and his killing, the U.S. military has achieved a decisive strike against al Qaeda," she said.

"At his command and in his name, terror was enforced into many countries against men women and children, Christians as well as Muslims. Osama bin Laden suggested that he was operating in the name of Islam, but in reality he makes a mockery of the fundamental values of his own and every other religion."

Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister for the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip

The prime minister condemned the killing, describing bin Laden as a Muslim "mujahid" or holy warrior.

Al Qaeda and the Islamist radical group Hamas have no official relationship, but the Palestinian conflict with Israel has been the subject of frequent audio messages from al Qaeda.

India's external affairs minister M. Krishnas

India applauded the killing as a "historic development and victorious milestone in the global war" against terror.

"Over the years, thousands of innocent lives of men, women and children have been tragically lost at the hands of terrorist groups," the minister said.

"The world must not let down its united effort to overcome terrorism and eliminate the safe havens and sanctuaries that have been provided to terrorists in our own neighborhood."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The prime minister applauded the development in the war against terror.

"Israel joins in the joy of the American people on this historic day in which Osama bin Laden was killed. ... This is a resounding victory for justice, freedom and for the joint values of all the countries that fight side by side determinedly against terror."

Israeli President Shimon Peres

"The end of bin Laden is a great piece of news for the free world," he said.

"This man was a mega murderer, he killed thousands and thousands of people, people who were totally innocent, and would continue to kill, his purpose in life was to kill anybody who doesn't belong to him."

Italian foreign Minister Franco Frattini

The foreign minister said "this is a great victory for the United States and for the entire international community" in the fight against terror.

"It is a victory made possible by the determination of the United States in their hunt against the one responsible for the most tragic episode at the beginning of this century, 9/11 and numerous other tragedies," he said. " A victory that rewards the efforts that all of us next to the United States have fought and continue to fight against terrorism. A victory of good against evil, of justice against malignancy. It is a victory of the free and democratic world."

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's office

Spokesman Noriyuki Shikata said the nation would continue its work with the international community to combat terrorism.

"We pay our respects to the efforts of those concerned, including the U.S. and Pakistan. We regard this as part of a united effort to fight against terrorism," Shikata said. "Japan has been working on assistance to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and proactively tackling the issue of terrorism."

Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua

The nation, which was bombed by al Qaeda in 1998, called his killing a "defining moment in the fight against" terrorism.

"Kenya was the first country to be attacked by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's death comes as a relief to many of the victims of the bombings in East Africa," the spokesman said.

NATO

"This is a significant success for the security of NATO allies and all the nations which have joined us in our efforts to combat the scourge of global terrorism to make the world a safer place for all of us," it said in a statement. "NATO made clear that it considered the September 11 attacks on the United States an attack against all allies. We remember the thousands of innocent lives lost to terrorist atrocities in so many of our nations, in Afghanistan, and around the world."

Pakistan foreign ministry

The Pakistani foreign ministry issued a statement confirming the terror leader's death.

"In an intelligence driven operation, Osama bin Laden was killed in the surroundings of Abbottabad in the early hours of this morning. This operation was conducted by the U.S. forces in accordance with declared U.S. policy that Osama bin Laden will be eliminated in a direct action by the U.S. forces, wherever found in the world," the ministry said.

"Earlier today, President Obama telephoned President Zardari on the successful U.S. operation which resulted in killing of Osama bin Laden."

The ministry said the killing highlights the resolve of Pakistan and the international community to combat terrorism.

Russia

Russia said it is ready to help step up efforts to combat terror, saying only joint efforts can produce results.

"Russia was among the first countries to face the dangers inherent in global terrorism, and unfortunately knows what al Qaeda is not from hearsay," the Kremlin said. "Retribution will inevitably reach all terrorists."

Spain's ruling Socialist Party

"This is good news because it has put an end to the symbolic leader of international jihadi terrorism, the al Qaeda chief, the head of the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world."

Turkish President Abdullah Gul

Gul said he welcomed the news of bin Laden's death.

"Terrorists and leaders of terrorists are captured alive or dead sooner or later," Gul said at a news conference. "It should teach a lesson that the leader of the world's most dangerous and sophisticated terrorist organization is captured this way.

Uganda government spokesman Fred Opolot

The east African nation pledged to continue its fight against terrorism. Ugandan troops are part of an African Union force helping fight the al-Shabaab -- an al Qaeda proxy -- in Somalia.

"Uganda shall continue to support the ongoing fight against global terrorism and renews its commitment to bring to justice those who commit acts of terror in the country," the spokesman said.

The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi

"Osama bin Laden, as we all know, had the very grave responsibility of spreading division and hatred amongst the people, causing the death of countless of people, and of instrumentalizing religion for this end," he said. "In front of the death of man, a Christian never rejoices but rather reflects on the grave responsibility of each one in front of God and men, and hopes and commits himself so that every moment not be an occasion for hatred to grow but for peace."

Yemeni government official

A government official described the death of Osama bin Laden as "a truly historic moment."

We welcome the news ... millions of people will sleep in peace tonight," the official said. "Osama bin Laden was more of a symbolic figure, a spiritual leader for al Qaeda."

The official said it is too early to determine how his death will affect the war against terror.

"But this is definitely a strong blow to the organization," said the official, who did not want to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media.

Embassy of the Republic of Yemen

"The government of the Republic of Yemen welcomes the elimination of Usama Bin Laden, the founding father of the al Qaeda terrorist network. The successful operation, spearheaded by U.S. forces, marks a monumental milestone in the ongoing global war against terrorism."

**Ketara**

Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

Even if this is the case (the figure of 66 people is quoted above), the incidental killing of 66 British citizens in a terrorist attack on another regime is no basis for the British forces to be assassinating leaders of that terrorist attack in another country, risking war, life and limb.

**WarOne**

Ketara wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

Even if this is the case (the figure of 66 people is quoted above), the incidental killing of 66 British citizens in a terrorist attack on another regime is no basis for the British forces to be assassinating leaders of that terrorist attack in another country, risking war, life and limb.

Hmm....what do you think should the response be then Ketara? What do you think the UK government should do in this case?

**Huffy**

Well, it turned out to be an exciting weekend with the royal wedding, JP2, and now Mr. bin Laden got justice.
I wonder how this will affect Pakistan, the taliban there has begun its threats....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/pakistan-taliban-binladen-idUSL3E7G21C420110502

**Lord Harrab**

Ketara wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

Even if this is the case (the figure of 66 people is quoted above), the incidental killing of 66 British citizens in a terrorist attack on another regime is no basis for the British forces to be assassinating leaders of that terrorist attack in another country, risking war, life and limb.

hmm, fair enough.

**htj**

Lord Harrab wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

Even if this is the case (the figure of 66 people is quoted above), the incidental killing of 66 British citizens in a terrorist attack on another regime is no basis for the British forces to be assassinating leaders of that terrorist attack in another country, risking war, life and limb.

hmm, fair enough.

Another reason would be that the man and his organisation pose a significant threat to India, with whom Britain has very close relations and a financial obligation to. If Al Qaeda gained power in Pakistan, a not unlikely scenario, India would come under serious threat. Nuclear arsenals are at play on that level, we're not talking about 66 people in that case. Shadows cast by a giant like the British Empire take a very long time to fade.

**ChrisWWII**

Heh, over here in the UK I'm labeled the 'creepy American flatmate' for wearing red white and blue and openly stating that this is a great victory for the US. Ah well.

**Ketara**

WarOne wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

Even if this is the case (the figure of 66 people is quoted above), the incidental killing of 66 British citizens in a terrorist attack on another regime is no basis for the British forces to be assassinating leaders of that terrorist attack in another country, risking war, life and limb.

Hmm....what do you think should the response be then Ketara? What do you think the UK government should do in this case?

What should we do? Well, I would have avoided Iraq and Afghanistan for one thing. A full scale war over some incidental deaths from an attack not even targeted at us is a ridiculously disproportionate response. To quote Terry Pratchett: 'You did this to people because they stole your hat? What do you do if they spit in your eye, blow up the country?'

If there are evil organisations abroad plotting the downfall of the British government, let them stay there. Intelligence operations and diplomacy are for taking care of that kind of thing. But in this case, our dead were simply caught up in the misfortune of another nation altogether. To quote myself, 'It ain't got nothing to do with us.'

htj wrote:
Lord Harrab wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:Why? It ain't got nothing to do with us.

September 11th was the worst terror attack in British history too, in terms of Britons killed in the atrocity.

Even if this is the case (the figure of 66 people is quoted above), the incidental killing of 66 British citizens in a terrorist attack on another regime is no basis for the British forces to be assassinating leaders of that terrorist attack in another country, risking war, life and limb.

hmm, fair enough.

Another reason would be that the man and his organisation pose a significant threat to India, with whom Britain has very close relations and a financial obligation to. If Al Qaeda gained power in Pakistan, a not unlikely scenario, India would come under serious threat. Nuclear arsenals are at play on that level, we're not talking about 66 people in that case. Shadows cast by a giant like the British Empire take a very long time to fade.

If Al Qaeda come into power in Pakistan, and are a legitimate government, then they are subjected to the regular rules of war. In other words, an attack on us from that position would be an attack upon a NATO member. A terrorist group arranging an attack is one thing, and the problem of the respective government they are opposed to. An attack by an established government is a whole different ball game. You mention nukes as some sort of decider, but the truth is, even if they gained control of Pakistanian nukes, they wouldn't possess the delivery means to hit us with it, and even if they did, they'd be looking at immediate nuclear retaliation and the complete destruction of Pakistan.

But then we're wandering far, far off the original scenario of, 'some citizens got caught up in an incident of some foreigners killing some other foreigners'.

ChrisWWII wrote:Heh, over here in the UK I'm labeled the 'creepy American flatmate' for wearing red white and blue and openly stating that this is a great victory for the US. Ah well.

How is it a great victory? You caught a guy with a beard who doesn't do much more than send out offensive videos these days. Sure, he's mass murderer, but would you describe every arrested chainsaw wielding maniac a great victory?

I'm pretty sure every time we caught a member of the IRA, we wouldn't label it a 'great victory'.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the phrase has far too many jingoistic connotations for me.

**ChrisWWII**

I consider it a great victory for the US just because it brings the man who killed 3,000 of my countryment to justice. To me that's a great victory, I mean...I wish I could have been in D.C. or NYC with those crowds. I'm jealous of my friends who went to Georgetown, Columbia, and all those other schools for that reason alone.

It may jsut be that I'm an American, but the fact that Osama bin Laden, the face of terrorism to the West has been taken down is enough to be a great victory. It's completely arbitrary, yes, but still.

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

That's basically how I feel right now. Is it irrational? Yes, I freely admit that. Will it make a big impact in the grand scheme? Who know? We have to wait for events to unfold. But for the time being, I am calling it a victory, if for nothing more than my own perverse joy at seeing Osama taken down.

**htj**

@Ketara

I'm not talking about them hitting us, I'm talking about them hitting India, which they very much have the power to do. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not as simple as just getting revenge for dead UK civilians.

**Ketara**

htj wrote:@Ketara

I'm not talking about them hitting us, I'm talking about them hitting India, which they very much have the power to do. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not as simple as just getting revenge for dead UK civilians.

Oookay, so a theoretical nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India has......what to do with us? I'm sorry, I don't even see how that's relevant. You can say it might kill british citizens there, affect our trade with the place, etc, but it'll do that for every nation on the planet. What makes it specific to this case, and the British in particular? Surely in that case, it should be the Indians trying to assassinate the chap, not us.

**Comintern**

All I have to say, in my best old School Unreal Tournament Voice...

"BOOM! HEADSHOT!"

**htj**

Ketara wrote:
htj wrote:@Ketara

I'm not talking about them hitting us, I'm talking about them hitting India, which they very much have the power to do. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not as simple as just getting revenge for dead UK civilians.

Oookay, so a theoretical nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India has......what to do with us? I'm sorry, I don't even see how that's relevant. You can say it might kill british citizens there, affect our trade with the place, etc, but it'll do that for every nation on the planet. What makes it specific to this case, and the British in particular? Surely in that case, it should be the Indians trying to assassinate the chap, not us.

Because of the Commonwealth! Like I said in my earlier post, we have a financial burden invested in India's wellbeing. If they're nuked, that's going to cost us more than any other country in the world. Er, except India, obviously.

**kronk**

...

**Ketara**

htj wrote:
Ketara wrote:
htj wrote:@Ketara

I'm not talking about them hitting us, I'm talking about them hitting India, which they very much have the power to do. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not as simple as just getting revenge for dead UK civilians.

Oookay, so a theoretical nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India has......what to do with us? I'm sorry, I don't even see how that's relevant. You can say it might kill british citizens there, affect our trade with the place, etc, but it'll do that for every nation on the planet. What makes it specific to this case, and the British in particular? Surely in that case, it should be the Indians trying to assassinate the chap, not us.

Because of the Commonwealth! Like I said in my earlier post, we have a financial burden invested in India's wellbeing. If they're nuked, that's going to cost us more than any other country in the world. Er, except India, obviously.

But....that's like saying the Chinese should be trying to take out the Iranians in case they come up with a bomb, hit America with it, and China loses money.....

wut?

I'm sorry, this scenario is so far off on its own tangent now, I have no idea why this is relevant to Osama Bin Laden beign dead any more.

**schadenfreude**

sebster wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:

The goal of terrorism is often to goad a nation into doing something stupid,

I don't believe this. I believe the goals of terrorism vary considerably, and hoping to cause the enemy to respond in a foolish and incorrect manner can be a medium term goal, but only really in the sense of hoping the response will be so disproportionate and harmful to the local population that it ends up building support for the terrorists.

Long term you actually need achievable goals, and bin Laden had no such thing. When trying to make a case that you might 'respect' a mass killer, you need to claim what he achieved with his killing. bin Laden achieved nothing.

Making the assumption than your enemies have no strategic goals is the worst possible assumption that can be made in a war.

Actualy Bin Laden did have long term strategic goals. He was very vocal about them and would frequently broadcast them to the world, but most Americans never listened to him or even bothered to ask what our enemies are trying to achieve. The long term strategic goal that Bin Laden frequently advocated was to take down the US as a superpower by slowly bleeding us of money until we suffer an economic collapse similar to what the Soviet Union experienced in 1991. The slow long term bleed is very long term generational goal that is much like how the North Vietnamese were planning to have their grandchildren continue on with the Vietnam war. Being a veteran of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan Bin Laden knew the best way to bleed the US of cash would be a long drawn out ground war. Now $400 billion for Afghanistan won't break the back of the US treasury, but the 2 trillion or so for the Iraq war is what Bin Laden had in mind. The primary goal of 9/11 was to cause damage to our stock market costing us money, followed by a ground war in Afghanistan which ended up costing us about $40 billion a year which isn't too bad because if you drag the war out over 40 years it comes to 3.6 trillion dollars. The other goal was to goad us into do something stupid which has much bigger potential rewards (like the Iraq war), but is not reliable and thus may never come to fruition.

**htj**

Basically I'm just saying that hunting down Al Qaeda is about more than revenge for dead Brits. But clearly I'm making a mess of it, so I'll leave it at that.

**halonachos**

Ketara wrote:
How is it a great victory? You caught a guy with a beard who doesn't do much more than send out offensive videos these days. Sure, he's mass murderer, but would you describe every arrested chainsaw wielding maniac a great victory?

I'm pretty sure every time we caught a member of the IRA, we wouldn't label it a 'great victory'.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the phrase has far too many jingoistic connotations for me.

Its a great victory for us because it happened when a lot of us were alive and it was the main reason why we invaded Afghanistan, did you invade Ireland based on the attacks of the IRA? No, but we invaded an entire country to get the guy so getting him is kind of a big deal.

Comparing the IRA and Britains response can't be compared to Bin Laden and America's response. Eat your heart out Shuma.