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.

The Saudis were asked whether they wanted his body. They said no.

Next logical step is to bury him in an unspecified spot in international waters.

We buried Megatron at sea from a carrier. How did that work out? Huh?!?

HUH?!?!?

dienekes96 wrote:We buried Megatron at sea from a carrier. How did that work out? Huh?!?

HUH?!?!?

Are you saying that Al Queda's reprisal will be a craptastic movie sequel!? Followed by possibly another crap sequel soon!?

Those bastards!

NELS1031 wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:We buried Megatron at sea from a carrier. How did that work out? Huh?!?

HUH?!?!?

Are you saying that Al Queda's reprisal will be a craptastic movie sequel!? Followed by possibly another crap sequel soon!?

Those bastards!

911 2? (1822)

Well it would certainly be one of the worst combinations to befall mankind----Bin Laden resurrected with Michael Bay directing.

Altruizine wrote: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.

Well, yeah, I mean, obviously the desire to get revenge for 9/11 made the sale of Iraq to the US people much easier. But if you believe that the US people would not have tolerated a war in Iraq without 9/11, then you'd perhaps like to list all the wars that government wanted that the people rejected, and managed to prevent.

I think it's a sad reality that if one's government says some random group of people are a grave and serious threat, the majority of ordinary citizens are inclined to believe them, and support war. If the war drags on that enthusiasm quickly fades, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote: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.

I think it's pretty clear some part of the government did.

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.?

Sadly very few.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Maybe, but there's no point pretending their goals are ingenious, machiavellian masterplans when they're simply not. AQ's goals are the establishment of a single caliphate to rule over the Islamic world.

This is an absolute impossibility and can basically be summed up as the power fantasy of a collection of delusional, murderous dickheads. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken very seriously, because they've killed people, but we should treat the practicality of their strategic goals with the contempt it deserves.

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.

That is not AQ's long term, strategic goal. You're making the mistake of seeing this through a very US filter, defining AQ in terms of their intentions towards you, not towards what they personally want to achieve.

The US is a convenient marker for the modern world that AQ rails against, scoring victories against it serves as a PR boost, nothing more.

Think about it, if AQ was actually dedicated to the collapse of the US system, wouldn't they focus on far more practical, constant economic attacks? Taking out power lines and rail lines, blowing up water pipes? No, instead they focus on one-off, high profile terror attacks, that require lots of planning and symbolism, in order to gain maximum media attention.

followed by a ground war in Afghanistan

Forming a plan that involves having your bases of operations destroyed and your networks dismantled is a stupid plan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Besides, Bin Laden was in charge of the Taliban when 9/11 occured and took responsibility for the attack. The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, put two and two together and we have a good reason to invade. Bin Laden evaded us for 10 years and we finally got him, its a big thing.

bin Laden was never in charge of the Taliban. The Taliban were sheltering AQ, which is a very different state of affairs.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the need to invade Afghanistan, if an Irish government were sheltering the IRA, damn straight the British should, and would have invaded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

spyfunk wrote:We're celebrating something you'll hopefully never have to understand.

Excuse me? No-one else but the US has ever suffered terrorism?

That's more than a little rich, there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.

They can't operate anywhere they want. Pakistan gave the US authority to operate on its soil. You should have read about it in the news, it was a pretty big deal a few years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've got your barbarism right here

You're on a forum filled mostly with teenagers, most of whom a war nerds. It really shouldn't be any surprise that a significant number like to play games about being really mean to bad guys.

I mean, there is an important point to be made about the dubious nature of US moral authority, particularly in the wake* of the US actually initiating policies for torturing prisoners, but if you actually care about that cause, and not just about being self-righteous on the internet, then you're really better off keeping those concerns to other thread, because you're extremely unlikely to convince anyone that the operation to kill Osama was morally dubious at all.




*Well, arguably we're still in the midst of it, really, we just stopped talking about when Obama won.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.

I think we need less accusations of trolling around here, to be honest. There is a big difference between someone with a contraversial, minority opinion, and someone who's just saying something to upset the forum.

It seems to me like Arbeitschu is a guy with a strong interest in due process, and he just picked a really bad thread to try and make that point.

Not just a really bad thread to make the point in, but really bad examples for that point as well.

AgeOfEgos wrote:As an aside, here is a photo from the situation room as the operation was in progress;

Is it just me or does Obama look out of proportion in that picture? He looks tiny.

corpsesarefun wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:As an aside, here is a photo from the situation room as the operation was in progress;







I would rate that "Ass Sphincter Level: Critical"

I love how obama is the least powerful looking and also most simply dressed person in the room

Watch the take down of the most wanted man of America while in a windbreaker, check.

Obama's checklist just got shorter.

BTW the air force guy in the middle is updating his facebook status to "Lol, Osama's going to get a surprise."

sebster wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:As an aside, here is a photo from the situation room as the operation was in progress;

Is it just me or does Obama look out of proportion in that picture? He looks tiny.

He really does. I wonder if it's intentional.

pete wrote:Surely the Pakistanis knew he was there. No internet, no phone line, all rubbish burned. They must have found that suspicious.

As I was explaining earlier in the thread, there is a massive difference between elements of Pakistani government knowing where he was, and the Pakistani government as a whole knowing where he was.

That some elements of the Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services are covertly supporting Islamic extremists is no secret, though this lends weight to those who've said the scope of support is considerable.

But it doesn't condemn the Pakistani government as a whole, there is still a good fight being waged within government. Though admittedly, this may indiicate they're losing by more than we had assumed.

Its turning out to be a bad week for evil.... sunday, airstikes in Libya kill gadahfies son (butchered his name...) and today, bin laden and two of his sons killed. YAY! AMERICA FTW!

Kanluwen wrote:Not just a really bad thread to make the point in, but really bad examples for that point as well.

Yeah, I mean I'm pretty much on his side, in terms of raising awareness about what the US has done and why it's a really bad idea, but this is just not the place to make that argument, and as you say he's made it very poorly. I'm staying well clear of trying to support the case

Kanluwen wrote:

sebster wrote:Is it just me or does Obama look out of proportion in that picture? He looks tiny.

He really does. I wonder if it's intentional.

Looks like he's actually got his chair back, closer to the wall than the table. He's not actually sitting next to the one star; he's sitting back from the table, but leaning forward. He's actually roughly parallel with the gentleman in the tan shirt and black tie.

halonachos wrote:BTW the air force guy in the middle is updating his facebook status to "Lol, Osama's going to get a surprise."

I think he's typing "6th edition 40K needs integrated rules for super heavy tanks, and rules for throwing grenades, and better rules for sniper guns and shotguns."

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Not just a really bad thread to make the point in, but really bad examples for that point as well.

Yeah, I mean I'm pretty much on his side, in terms of raising awareness about what the US has done and why it's a really bad idea, but this is just not the place to make that argument, and as you say he's made it very poorly. I'm staying well clear of trying to support the case

Me too. Not all of us have stopped talking about torture because Bush is out of office. Though agreed, it doesn't get as much press.

OrangePine stated
@Graveyman

In all likelihood the assault was over in a matter of minutes.

The last 35 minutes were probably spent destroying hard drives, burning papers, snatching the downed crew and planting thermite on the bird.

That was my first belief too but the article I read specifically said Bin Laden was taken down in the last 10 minutes. It may just be that the report is inaccurate.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

sebster wrote:Is it just me or does Obama look out of proportion in that picture? He looks tiny.

He really does. I wonder if it's intentional.

Looks like he's actually got his chair back, closer to the wall than the table. He's not actually sitting next to the one star; he's sitting back from the table, but leaning forward. He's actually roughly parallel with the gentleman in the tan shirt and black tie.

Ah, I see it now, at first glance it looked like he was on the corner of the desk and weirdly small, but once I line up the back end of the desk I see what you're saying, he's actually in that back line of people. Photo was just taken on an odd angle.

Mannahnin wrote:

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Not just a really bad thread to make the point in, but really bad examples for that point as well.

Yeah, I mean I'm pretty much on his side, in terms of raising awareness about what the US has done and why it's a really bad idea, but this is just not the place to make that argument, and as you say he's made it very poorly. I'm staying well clear of trying to support the case

Me too. Not all of us have stopped talking about torture because Bush is out of office. Though agreed, it doesn't get as much press.

I'd say that's for two reasons, off the top of my head.

Either:
A) Obama's been far sneakier about how/where the torture is occurring.
or
B) It really has stopped.

Nonsense. That photo was obviously doctored. They inserted Obama in there to make him look Presidential.

Barack was probably cowering in nameless fear in the East Wing bathroom, hoping no one would find him.

Fact.

Kanluwen wrote:I'd say that's for two reasons, off the top of my head.

Either:
A) Obama's been far sneakier about how/where the torture is occurring.
or
B) It really has stopped.

I think A is part of it, not because Obama has been particularly sneaky, but because much of the contraversy was caused by the Bush administration spending a lot of time talking about how torture was okay.

Part of it is leftwingers being okay when their guy does it.

But the biggest part is probably that with right now it's a problem without a solution. Four years ago people could complain about Bush doing it, and think it'll change when they vote in a leftwinger, but now they've got one and the torture is still going on, what are they supposed to do? Vote for Trump, hoping he'll stop the torture?

And it hasn't stopped. Look up what happened to the guy who gave up all those wikileaks documents.

AgeOfEgos wrote:As an aside, here is a photo from the situation room as the operation was in progress;







I would rate that "Ass Sphincter Level: Critical"

Clinton is like "Guys, this movie is too gory for me, can we watch something else?"

I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".

He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.

Kanluwen wrote:

sebster wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:As an aside, here is a photo from the situation room as the operation was in progress;

Is it just me or does Obama look out of proportion in that picture? He looks tiny.

He really does. I wonder if it's intentional.

Someone needs to photoshop Sad Keanu or the cigar guy from the golf photos into this pic.

I saw this on Facebook, thought it was funny.

(Dude 1): Bin Laden is dead : D

(Dude 2) likes this.

(Dude 2): Amazing what Americans can do when the Playstation Network is down....

Slarg232 wrote:I saw this on Facebook, thought it was funny.

(Dude 1): Bin Laden is dead : D

(Dude 2) likes this.

(Dude 2): Amazing what Americans can do when the Playstation Network is down....

lol

There's an insinuation in there somewhere, maybe related to a certain Air Force super computer. I knew they were playing Rachet and Clank behind out backs!

Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".

He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.

What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.

The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.

The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.

Maybe...


I think the best one I saw was this:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".

He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.

What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.

The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.

The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.

Probably because he's not a POW or just any criminal, he's under the control of the military. They take the law in their own hands, one time this guy on my dad's ship was breaking into someone's locker(guy had just got his paycheck cashed and put the money in there) with a crowbar and another guy in the room caught him. Well the guy with the crowbar tried to brain the witness but the crowbar got caught on the rail above the bunk. They beat the guy within an inch of his life, shoved his face in the nastiest toilet they could find on the ship, hogtied him, and left him in the commons with a sign saying "thief" around his neck. The captain saw this and said that it was done and over with after finding out what happened.

Another time a drunk sailor was put into the brig and kept spitting at the guard. The guard called the quartermaster who was then spat at by the drunk sailor, the drunk sailor got beat and didn't spit again.

The military is a different kind of beast and even if you decided to speak out against the treatments you were alienated by the people who may potentially have to save your life one day.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".

He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.

What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.

The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.

The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.

What exactly about his imprisonment is torturous? The forced nudity is his own damn fault for telling guards he could kill himself with the elastic of his underwear while on suicide watch. As far as everything else goes he is in MILITARY prison, all that prisoner's rights crap goes out the window.

They are still allowed to put him on bread and water for misbehaving, but they haven't.

Every other prisoner in that facility is isolated, so nothing special there..

He is damned lucky he isn't going to the firing squad for leaking CLASSIFIED documents to a foreigner to be plastered all over the internet.Which imho he deserves. If he didn't want to serve his country I don't remember any recent drafts...

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".

He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.

What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.

The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.

He was being held at a maximum security prison. Of course he was being made to sit in his cell in solitary.
As to the "sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear and attend morning parade naked"--he was placed on "Prevention of Injury Order". Manning was then stupid enough to, even jokingly, say that "harm himself with the waistband of his underwear or his flipflops".

Can you imagine the gakstorm if he had done it and it came out that he'd joked about it?

Glasses being taken away isn't unreasonable though. If they have reason to believe someone's a suicide risk, they will take pretty much everything away from you.

The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.

Mendez was denied access for an unmonitored meeting. There's a difference between that and "denied access to see Manning". He's still a prisoner after all. The only unmonitored access he's really allowed is with his lawyer.

I find it kind of hard to be sympathetic in Manning's case though. Most of the crap being tossed the military's way is that "Oh he's being 'tortured'!". Far from it.

Many of the things described by David House('change from an intelligent young man' to 'a catatonic individual', for example) are not uncommon in people who are put into prison.