Osama Bin Laden is dead!

Waiting for COD DLC.....

Mytch wrote:

Thought this was interesting:

The Man Who Led Us To Osama

Particularly this passage:

CNN wrote:

Analysis of assessments of detainees held at the U.S. Navy's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, include several mentions of a man by the name of Abu Ahmad al Kuwaiti, who was reportedly close to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- also a Kuwaiti.

Wonder what kind of "assessments" turned up that name? And what kind of effect, if any, it would have on the current jubilation if those assessments turned out to be a more intense procedure than asking in a really, really mean voice?

KSM was waterboarded along with other interrogation techniques at Gitmo. There he gave up the nom de guerre of the courier. The 20th 9/11 bomber (Muhammad Mani al-Qahtani) also had the alias and gave it up at Gitmo. He was treated to a variety of humiliation type interrogation techniques as well as exposure to cold temperatures.

From what I've read, the actual name of the courier came from Hassan Ghul, captured in Iraq in 2004, and who also gave up the name via "enhanced interrogation". Not at Gitmo, but some other part of the world. Speculation may be that this "black site" used for his interrogation was Pakistan.

Paleocon wrote:

Wow. The compound looks EXACTLY like something out of Combat Mission Shock Force:

Sorry Rainbow 6 and other fans, but a BF2 modder beat everyone to it.

Well played, sir. I will totally get that when he's finished.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Wow. The compound looks EXACTLY like something out of Combat Mission Shock Force:

Sorry Rainbow 6 and other fans, but a BF2 modder beat everyone to it.

I was fooled.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

He wouldn't let little kids look for their lost soccer balls, he deserved whatever he got.

The thing that got me was the area for burning trash. I'm thinking they had a pit bull tied to a stake in the ground, and maybe an engine block hanging from a tree.

I read somewhere that burning trash, while illegal, is very very common in Pakistan. You can't draw the same kinds of inferences that you could from someone doing that here.

I don't see how Osama's manner of death can have any significance. America gave up whatever claim it had to being "good guys" when the American army exterminated every living soul on Samar.

Has Pakistan release any statements about how they didn't know Osama was under their nose?

LarryC wrote:

I don't see how Osama's manner of death can have any significance. America gave up whatever claim it had to being "good guys" when the American army exterminated every living soul on Samar.

That recently, huh?

Mytch:

I haven't observed a radically different sort of mindset for America and its armies. Kill Team is not getting strung up to dry, for instance, and not too long ago, the American Embassy used its clout to protect a soldier who was convicted of rape. These are just the cases that are brought to light. I hear a lot more about cases that don't get brought to light (but those are just hearsay).

As far as I can tell, the only people who really think that Americans are good guys are Americans. Perhaps it's time to abandon that illusion and just applaud the army for being effective. Mission Accomplished, right?

Could we not turn this thread into an even bigger argument? It gets tiresome.

LarryC wrote:

Mytch:

I haven't observed a radically different sort of mindset for America and its armies. Kill Team is not getting strung up to dry, for instance, and not too long ago, the American Embassy used its clout to protect a soldier who was convicted of rape. These are just the cases that are brought to light. I hear a lot more about cases that don't get brought to light (but those are just hearsay).

As far as I can tell, the only people who really think that Americans are good guys are Americans. Perhaps it's time to abandon that illusion and just applaud the army for being effective. Mission Accomplished, right?

I agree, in general. Without going into a long post about it--I'm finishing up at work; I want to go home!--I don't think there's really any state, organization, party, or movement that can be held up as a paragon of righteousness, and I too get irritated when people try to pretend that the group they're a part of doesn't have skeletons in its closet. That said, I do still think that the idea of "The United States of America" is a noble one, worth fighting/dying for, and worth being proud of for those of us who don't have the opportunity/guts to step up to that line.

The distinction lies in the core values of the group in question, and whether they are responsible for the bad behavior, or if the perpetrators act out in spite of them. In the case you mentioned, and mine, and the (possibly) illegal killing of bin Laden, I think it's the latter.

LarryC wrote:

I don't see how Osama's manner of death can have any significance. America gave up whatever claim it had to being "good guys" when the American army exterminated every living soul on Samar.

Every living soul, really? Hyperbole undermines your argument. Also, that action didn't exactly earn a ringing endorsement from 'America', since the general that ordered it and some of his officers were all court-martialed afterward.

I'm not sure I understand the finer points of your response, Mytch. If we just ask random survivors of American aggression, or even random beneficiaries of American handouts, I don't think anyone can really point to a virtuous ideal and say that that was the reason for their misfortune/fortune. It's really hard to point out anything that America stands for other than itself and its own power and wealth, if we are to judge purely from its actions.

It's important that soldiers and citizens have a noble idea to aspire to, because that's how you get them to be loyal and do insane things against their personal or familial interests. What American policy-makers do with that kind of a force has been... ...inconsistent, but generally self-serving. In the case of bin Laden, how he died doesn't really matter, unless you're an American and your largely illusionary reason for being loyal to your country is at stake.

LeapingGnome wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I don't see how Osama's manner of death can have any significance. America gave up whatever claim it had to being "good guys" when the American army exterminated every living soul on Samar.

Every living soul, really? Hyperbole undermines your argument. Also, that action didn't exactly earn a ringing endorsement from 'America', since the general that ordered it and some of his officers were all court-martialed afterward.

Yes. Samar was completely depopulated - every man, woman, and child. You would suppose that its an exaggeration, and I wish it was, but it's not. Acting as the face of America, this is what General Smith said regarding orders:

"I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you kill and burn, the better it will please me... The interior of Samar must be made a howling wilderness..."

The general that ordered it was court-martialed, and got a slap on the wrist for his crimes. The nominal presentation of having a court marital was essential to maintain espirit de corps in the army in general. Can't have them believing that America isn't noble.

To be more specific, every living soul over ten years old. Still egregious, regardless.

If America only stood for itself and its own power and wealth, the whole world would be speaking English. Poorly.

HopeChest wrote:

If America only stood for itself and its own power and wealth, the whole world would be speaking English. Poorly.

That's actually not a very good policy to enact. Generally speaking, you want subject states and peoples to retain their languages, if only because changing an entire nation's linguistic landscape is really hard and expensive. Ideally, you want subject peoples to generate wealth you can suction away in various forms, without paying very much in the way of overhead.

LarryC wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I don't see how Osama's manner of death can have any significance. America gave up whatever claim it had to being "good guys" when the American army exterminated every living soul on Samar.

Every living soul, really? Hyperbole undermines your argument. Also, that action didn't exactly earn a ringing endorsement from 'America', since the general that ordered it and some of his officers were all court-martialed afterward.

Yes. Samar was completely depopulated - every man, woman, and child.

I'd be interested in seeing where you get that info from. Everything I have read on Balangiga does estimate thousands dead (I remember estimates from 2k to 50,000), but that was nowhere near the full population of Samar. Unless there is some other occasion I haven't heard of.

EDIT: Yeah, from Wipeout's wiki link above -

"The exact number of Filipino civilians killed by US troops will never be known, but some Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000.[15] Research by a British writer in the 1990s put the figure at about 2,500; the rate of Samar's population growth slowed as refugees fled from Samar to Leyte,[21] yet still the population of Samar increased by 21,456 during the war. A great loss of life is not supported.[22]"

Never said it was, or that it would even be the result of an enacted policy. Don't see the relevance, LarryC.

Sorry, I thought I was in a thread about Osama's take down.

LeapingGnome:

I believe most people were able to successfully flee the island. Many towns were found abandoned following the blockade of food and other essentials to the island. The island was depopulated, but thankfully, much of it was from emigration. This doesn't mean that Americans were following a benevolent policy. If they found you and you were over 10, you were dead.

HopeChest:

There was some talk about Osama's manner of takedown being important. I was saying that it wasn't. America has not been the "good guy" for decades now, so it's really not that important how Osama was taken down. The important thing is that he was.

MannishBoy:

I think many guys are responding to the idea that America isn't the good guy.

Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun.

--Signed,
America

LarryC: sure, I'm aware of all that, I was just pointing out that your reply wasn't relevant--I wasn't talking about whether it would be a good or bad policy, or even a policy at all. Just that it would be the way things were. You can PM me to clear up your confusion--I don't know if we should be taking up more room in the thread sorting your misunderstanding out.

LarryC wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the finer points of your response, Mytch.

No problem, it's pretty late, and I probably didn't explain myself very well.

In a nutshell, I'm talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, many have done some pretty rotten things as representatives of America; doesn't mean that America itself deserves our scorn. Sounds like we disagree as to whether there is anything but selfish power-grabbing at the heart of...well, anything done by any elected official--I do think there's too much of that in government, but I think most politicians at least start out with good intentions--but that's fine. It's a free country.

Mytch:

You could have all American politicians with nothing but pro-American sentiments at heart and it would change nothing. For the most part, Americans are for Americans, and not for anyone else, nor for anything else. The concept of America as some land where all men are equal and everyone has equal opportunities is a nice fantasy, but it's just a fantasy. Likewise, the idea that America strives to uplift the world and stand for what's right is a nice fantasy, but it's also just a fantasy.

As long as Americans see Americans as "more human" than the rest of the world, it will continue to act in similar ways to the way it's acted at the turn of the century, whether or not individual government officials are selfish or not.

I mean, take the way American teenagers are celebrating Osama's death, even when they don't know who the hell he is. All they know is that he's the enemy, and as America's enemy, he must die by any means possible. That's a more accurate barometer of American sentiment in general than any feel-good speech about America's ideals that I've ever heard.

i38warhawk wrote:
Bear wrote:

Will citizens across the US run outside, scream and shoot into the air?

We're far to lazy for that.

But not lazy enough for our gas powered ATVs!

LarryC wrote:

Mytch:

You could have all American politicians with nothing but pro-American sentiments at heart and it would change nothing. For the most part, Americans are for Americans, and not for anyone else, nor for anything else. The concept of America as some land where all men are equal and everyone has equal opportunities is a nice fantasy, but it's just a fantasy. Likewise, the idea that America strives to uplift the world and stand for what's right is a nice fantasy, but it's also just a fantasy.

As long as Americans see Americans as "more human" than the rest of the world, it will continue to act in similar ways to the way it's acted at the turn of the century, whether or not individual government officials are selfish or not.

I mean, take the way American teenagers are celebrating Osama's death, even when they don't know who the hell he is. All they know is that he's the enemy, and as America's enemy, he must die by any means possible. That's a more accurate barometer of American sentiment in general than any feel-good speech about America's ideals that I've ever heard.

Well, agree to disagree, then. I can see where you could come to that conclusion, considering the examples we've discussed, but I'm just not cynical enough to believe that our elected officials are only interested in perpetuating America for America's sake. I think the heart of a lot of legislation and foreign policy--even the ones I disagree with--begin with a desire to promote equality and to do the right thing.

Not sure the behavior of teenagers--American or otherwise--is a fair criteria for judging the attitude of a country, though.