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.
samrtk wrote:Then again if Obama really cared for his country he'd end the wars, but he's not that kind of president, he's another tool out of the machine.
He would if he could, but the Syndicate keeps him from making those kind of decisions.
Cane wrote:Bin Laden's still dead! feth yea! May not mean that much to some, especially civvies outside the states, but its a boost for the general morale especially to those who sacrificed to reach such a goal.
samrtk wrote:
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
Were ya around for the Falklands War?
Good point, though I would argue that people celebrated because we won, rather than because we killed a lot of Argentinian servicemen. There wasn't a specific hate figure on whom to focus.
The worry about Bin Laden is that he wasn't crucial to Al Qaeda, and things will go on much as before, after a brief moment of euphoria.
Apparently a lot of computer data was removed. Hopefully that will be a major boost to intelligence.
I don't think anyone here in the US(aside from the "Can our troops come home now? He's dead!" crowd) has been operating under the illusion that Bin Laden's death will effectively change anything.
At most: it will offset a lot of the recruiting furor that AQ and its associated agencies were able to associate to Bin Laden.
But it'll probably be offset with a martyrdom mixtape.
Another thing that came up was this letter from the Apache tribe to Obama(in the link).
Kanluwen wrote:I don't think anyone here in the US(aside from the "Can our troops come home now? He's dead!" crowd) has been operating under the illusion that Bin Laden's death will effectively change anything.
Nobody important, anyway. Though we can't say that unequivocally just yet. State legislatures, and to a lesser extent the House, tend to lag behind the news by about a month, and that's where most of the stupid comments from ppoliticians come from.
Kanluwen wrote:
At most: it will offset a lot of the recruiting furor that AQ and its associated agencies were able to associate to Bin Laden.
But it'll probably be offset with a martyrdom mixtape.
I think my favorite part of all this is "he was buried at sea to deny his followers a shrine." Shrines don't need bodies, despite what Mao, Lenin, and Khomeini have taught us.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Cane wrote:Bin Laden's still dead! feth yea! May not mean that much to some, especially civvies outside the states, but its a boost for the general morale especially to those who sacrificed to reach such a goal.
samrtk wrote:
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
Were ya around for the Falklands War?
Good point, though I would argue that people celebrated because we won, rather than because we killed a lot of Argentinian servicemen. There wasn't a specific hate figure on whom to focus.
The worry about Bin Laden is that he wasn't crucial to Al Qaeda, and things will go on much as before, after a brief moment of euphoria.
Apparently a lot of computer data was removed. Hopefully that will be a major boost to intelligence.
Depends who you talked to about the War when it comes to reasons for celebration and what or who they hated.
Killing Bin Laden was the right move even if he's just a figurehead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/04 18:58:06
Listening to the press conference, man I couldn't talk to the press people all day, every day. They literally ask the same question like 5 times in a row, or with slightly different wording.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't think anyone here in the US(aside from the "Can our troops come home now? He's dead!" crowd) has been operating under the illusion that Bin Laden's death will effectively change anything.
Nobody important, anyway. Though we can't say that unequivocally just yet. State legislatures, and to a lesser extent the House, tend to lag behind the news by about a month, and that's where most of the stupid comments from politicians come from.
But this gives us a great opportunity to clean out the crazies!
Kanluwen wrote:
At most: it will offset a lot of the recruiting furor that AQ and its associated agencies were able to associate to Bin Laden.
But it'll probably be offset with a martyrdom mixtape.
I think my favorite part of all this is "he was buried at sea to deny his followers a shrine." Shrines don't need bodies, despite what Mao, Lenin, and Khomeini have taught us.
I don't think that simply "denying his followers a shrine" was the point of it. I've said it before, but I'll say it again.
It also prevents anyone who didn't like him from desecrating the body any more than a pair of bullets to the face already did.
You won't see Western tourists going to the 'shrine' or tomb and violating its sanctity. You won't see people being able to turn a shrine to him into a potential target either.
Well Given His track record. When Obama says he is going to kill someone they are dead. Fox news has started calling this. Th Illegal killing of Bil Laden.
It's funny to see comments like "Blood thirsty Lefties" when most would balk at a dead fly.
And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.
Well, Duh! Because they had a giant Mining ship. If you had a giant mining ship you would drill holes in everything too, before you'd destory it with a black hole
That doesn't mean it's right to call them Al-Qaeda in many cases.
I would hesitate to call a group Al-Qaeda in many cases, but there's a trend emerging in terrorist groups for them to call themselves Al-Qaeda affiliates to kind of increase their profile. So it does make it a bit harder for the Western media to really keep up with it.
Kanluwen wrote:
But this gives us a great opportunity to clean out the crazies!
If only that were true. The thing about politicians, despite what everyone says, is that they're generally pretty smart about appealing to the people that are keeping them in office. That's why the House and similar organizations lag behind the news by a month, they don't say thing which they believe will get them in trouble.
Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that simply "denying his followers a shrine" was the point of it. I've said it before, but I'll say it again.
It also prevents anyone who didn't like him from desecrating the body any more than a pair of bullets to the face already did.
You won't see Western tourists going to the 'shrine' or tomb and violating its sanctity. You won't see people being able to turn a shrine to him into a potential target either.
Well, unless someone builds a symbolic tomb, which may well happen, though probably not, as Al-Qaeda has never been big on that type of concrete (literally this time) symbolism. He'll end up being declared a martyr, and probably Awliyā and that will be the end of it.
But you're right, much as killing him in action was probably the best solution (can you imagine the ridiculous circus any trial would have been?) burying him at sea neatly wipes any concern over rights to the body (and there would be tons) away.
I mean, its not like we can expect everyone in the US to behave like reasonable people. Just take this guy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/04 19:13:38
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Bin Laden was a military target. It's the same way a general is a military target even though he may not even be carrying a weapon.
Also, there's a difference between being unarmed and surrendering. He has to actually surrender or be "out of combat." So it's doesn't matter if he had a gun, a bomb, or a colostomy bag - he didn't surrender so you can shoot him.
In short - he's a valid military target and Navy SEALS aren't Cops. The same standards don't apply.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/04 19:17:28
sexiest_hero wrote:Well Given His track record. When Obama says he is going to kill someone they are dead. Fox news has started calling this. Th Illegal killing of Bil Laden.
Der Spiegal made the same argument. In fact, a lot of people in the international law area tend to think that there might have been problems with the operation.
Its a gray area. Traditionally international law regarding war does permit the killing of enemy commanders in the field, but using that line of argument with respect to bin Laden stretches precedent due to the former consideration of Al-Qaeda as a group of unprotected belligerents. In essence, you cannot name bin Laden an enemy commander without first according protected status to Al-Qaeda, which itself creates a number of other problems with respect to US policy regarding terrorist detainees.
Then you get to the matter of what constitutes "in the field", when the "field" is basically "where ever person X happens to be" At which point you're not talking about any particular battle space so much as any person you don't happen to like anywhere in the world, which essentially breaks the intention of the law.
f course, someone will then make the argument that bin Laden should be considered to be, for all intents and purposes, a saboteur; opening him to summary execution. This is a nonsense argument on its face as bin Laden himself sabotaged nothing. Per international law, leaders who order acts of espionage or sabotage are not subject to punitive action.
The argument that I expect the administration will make is that bin Laden represented an existential threat to US national security (which is probably false, though not so blatantly as to be challenged) as a high ranking member of a group of unprotected enemy combatants, which will probably get them out of everything other than the issue of "in the field"; itself largely a failing of international law, rather than administration policy.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
My main problem is not the operation, but the milking of it by Obama.
I am getting the impression that Obama wants us to think War on Terror was his idea.
CIA put the hours in, Seals train for and do the job, Obama stands there and says, 'look what I did'.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
On the contrary, he was far from milking it.
He's made it clear that it was his decision to break conventional protocol and keep the Pakistanis out of the loop.
He's basically taking all the blame onto his head.
Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Kanluwen wrote:And that's why terrorism is a pain in the arse to discuss.
Especially since most people seem to stop at "terrorism is evil!" and then spend hours trying to jump through hoops in order to prove that the US, UK, France, etc. has never committed terrorist acts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:My main problem is not the operation, but the milking of it by Obama.
I am getting the impression that Obama wants us to think War on Terror was his idea.
CIA put the hours in, Seals train for and do the job, Obama stands there and says, 'look what I did'.
Obama's announcement of bin LAden's death wrote:
"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
"We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Unless, for some reason, you really expected a person in high executive office to refrain from taking credit for an executive operation which he ordered, which really rings more as personal dislike for this particular office holder than it does with respect to an abnormal degree of media presence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:On the contrary, he was far from milking it.
He's made it clear that it was his decision to break conventional protocol and keep the Pakistanis out of the loop.
He's basically taking all the blame onto his head.
Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
QFT.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/05/04 19:54:52
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kanluwen wrote:Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Cite? Or are you just engaging in random bashing of Fox?
Kanluwen wrote:Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Cite? Or are you just engaging in random bashing of Fox?
How does one cite speculation? Or are you talking about the fact that they were ecstatic about his death in the hours after it was announced?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kanluwen wrote:On the contrary, he was far from milking it.
He's made it clear that it was his decision to break conventional protocol and keep the Pakistanis out of the loop.
He's basically taking all the blame onto his head.
Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
We are reading the same data different ways.
I am pretty sure Obama is milking it, declaring the news personally rather than through a military spokesman or state official. Making the point that 'he' gave the capture of Bin Laden as the highest priority, excuse me if i thought that Bush did that asnd Obama inherited. Showing all those photos of him in the White House ops room.
However the fact that he pissed off a foreign government unnecessarily and opened himself up to questions of heavy handedness, isn't that also typical Obama.
At a minimum he should have phoned the Pakistani government and advised them of the operation while it was ongoing, not doing so is a veiled accusation of collusion, which is grossly unfair. Bin Laden 'hid in plain sight', which is not a bad tactic really, and while some local persons probably knew he was there it does not of itself mean government collusion. After all the Pakistanis didn't know he was there for five-six years and this is understadable as after all the US government didnt know either, or this would have happened back then.
No Obama didn't go in with the Pakistanis because he didn't want to share a result. The data recovered from the compound is rightfully Pakistani police security services evidence, I doubt they or anyone else will see raw data. What Obama did there is the sort of stuff you only do if the state you are operating in is itself hostile.
Pakistan is not a hostile state, sure there are hostiles there, and the fact than the Pakistani government has done what it can to help defeat Al Quaeda and the Taliban at great cost to itself should not go un-noticed, let alone completely pissed on. Obama did all this purely because he wanted his mid term poll boost.
As far as the 'illegal killing' part I think the operation was more fethed up than the US is willing to admit. Trying Obama would have been a far better prize, for a start you get to find out what he knows, not just what his hard disk does. It also denies him a martryrs death. The official let alone unofficial story has changed, with White House officials saying he was 'killed in action', trying to shoot, cowering behind his wife and now shot while unarmed. Did a Seal panic? If he was offered surrender and refused to do so and was unarmed, isn't that when rifle butts come in handy? Why bother asking for his surrender.
The story is changing because of public perceptions of it, the last thing the US wants to for Bin Laden to become a martyr, which they could have very neatly avoided by capturing him alive. Making him out to be a coward was one approach, but that appears not to have washed beyond one day when the eye witnesses in Pakistani custody started to speak.
With the operation being as tightly controlled as it was, visibly hands on and top heavy, why cant the White House gets its story right first time?
I don't smell conspiracy but I do smell a botched spin job. At first it was OBL dying with his boots on gun in hand, when that didnt give the right message he was cowering behind his wife, when that was proven untrue he was found and asked to surrender then shot twice when he did not. I don't give a feth about his rights for a trial, it was a war situation, he only gets those rights once captured, but more care should have been exercised to get him alive. Its not like the American horde didnt have enough troops in the area to do that.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Kanluwen wrote:Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Cite? Or are you just engaging in random bashing of Fox?
How does one cite speculation? Or are you talking about the fact that they were ecstatic about his death in the hours after it was announced?
Speculation? What speculation? The poster made an affirmative statement, "Fox is already calling it an 'illegal killing.'" I am simply asking for validation of that statement.
The only comment I have seen on Fox is Shep Smith asking if the legality of the issue has been addressed by the administration, since some have already called this illegal (e.g. Human Rights watch, cited above). Napolitano appeared to give an analysis of the issue according to international law. But that wasn't on Fox.
sexiest_hero wrote:Well Given His track record. When Obama says he is going to kill someone they are dead. Fox news has started calling this. Th Illegal killing of Bil Laden.
Der Spiegal made the same argument. In fact, a lot of people in the international law area tend to think that there might have been problems with the operation.
I wipe my ass with their opinions. Give them a gun, drop them from a helicopter into Osama's compound and see what their opinion is. If I am in any way unclear - them and the horses they rode in on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:My main problem is not the operation, but the milking of it by Obama.
I am getting the impression that Obama wants us to think War on Terror was his idea.
CIA put the hours in, Seals train for and do the job, Obama stands there and says, 'look what I did'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/04 20:25:45
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Orlanth wrote:I am pretty sure Obama is milking it, declaring the news personally rather than through a military spokesman or state official.
Why in god's name would the President give the news to the nation that OBL had been found and killed to a subordinate? That makes no sense at all.
That was how Saddam's capture was announced. US forces in Iraq found him, it was announced by a press conference by US officials in Iraq:
Bush profited in the polls for this, but he didn't make any initial announcement himself. Obama is grandstanding on others hard work.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
Battlefleet Tomania (2500 pts)
them and the horses they rode in on. 